Saturday, December 30, 2017

Atlanta Peach Drop - Unlawful Weapons Ban Part 2 © 2018 Phillip Evans

!!!LATEST BREAKING NEWS!!! Even though APD has edited their bulletin for the Atlanta Peach Drop to remove "firearms" from the list of prohibited items, I've received word that Anne Torres (ATL Communication Director) is privately emailing people that licensed carry of firearms is STILL prohibited!

What kind of game is the City of Atlanta playing? Are they trying to get people in trouble? The Mayor has already stated below that licensed carriers who want to carry are a challenge to his police officers.

Is he trying to get people shot? Watch Atlanta's 11 Alive News this evening for further updates on this!


Well well, looks like Atlanta's 11 Alive News is paying attention. They picked up on my Facebook comment in which I said:

"Will Mayor Reed have the guts to publicly admit to telling APD that no weapons will be allowed at a public city park, contrary to state law?"

Now, why did I say this? It's because I spoke with Sgt. Strozier of the Atlanta Police Department, Friday Dec 29th, and he told me that they (APD) was "told there will be no guns at the Peach Drop."

Now who commands APD? The Mayor's Office of course, you silly goose!

"I haven't heard anything about that," said Mayor Reed, in reference to the social media critiques of which one was mine. "I have high confidence in our police department, and our fire department and our corrections department. We're going to have an amazing New Year's Eve."

Looks like the Mayor is mum about who told the police to keep the guns out! CHICKEN!!!

The 11 Alive article above goes on to say at the end, "Even if that happens, nothing will change before Sunday."

So I suppose that means they still intend to unlawfully ban legally carried weapons at the 2018 Peach Drop.

The City of Atlanta does have Ordinance 142-88 (d) on the books banning firearms at large events. However, that ordinance is preempted by state law, that is, IT IS NULL and VOID.

The anti-liberty Facebook comments are hilarious talking "g-g-guns and alcohol...aaaah!!!"

What they fail to realize is that people who are licensed to carry are among the most responsible adults out in public. To suggest that they would get drunk and shoot up the place is simply stupid.

Does the City of Atlanta wish to waste even more tax dollars over lawsuits to make it come into compliance with state law?

No one should be forced to be unarmed and helpless by unlawful government conduct, especially in downtown Atlanta.

Mayor Reed's bragging about the police is especially ironic in this case, since APD's Sgt. Strozier told me that the police will NOT be screening entrants for weapons. Only a private security firm will be doing that.

And if they keep people out who are lawfully carrying a pistol or knife, that is AGAINT the law. 


APD has removed FIREARMS from the list of their prohibited items!

It's good to know a little activism in getting the word out to the public about the law can get things changed. I don't take full credit, but since 11 Alive News quoted me (without naming me, I might add), I do take some credit.


At the Atlanta Police Department Facebook page, they marked the following comment of mine as spam:

"Just now saw where APD has edited their bulletin for the event and has REMOVED firearms from the prohibited list!

I guess someone got straightened out on state law and passed the word on to the police. 

That means you can OPEN CARRY or CONCEAL CARRY your firearms at the event.

Thanks to whoever tipped us off to the change. I just now saw it somewhere but can't find it again."

Now, why did they do that?

I just now posted this comment there:
"With firearms no longer on the APD list of prohibited items, that means the police should not give you a problem if you are legally carrying. If you have a valid weapons license, you may carry openly or concealed according to your choice at the event."

Let's see if they let that one stand.


Here's how Mayor Reed reacts when asked about people who feel they have a right under state law to lawfully carry their firearm at a public event in a public park:

"We're not going to be distracted by some folks who might want to challenge our officers."

Mayor Reed, it's NOT about challenging your officers. It's about being in compliance with state law. What is it about that, that you do not understand? 

Click here to read part 3...

Friday, December 29, 2017

Atlanta Peach Drop - Weapons Ban NOT Legal © 2017 Phillip Evans

"Chairs, coolers, firearms, umbrellas, drones, pets, bicycles, hoverboards and skateboards are all prohibited" (bold mine).


"Per APD, they got informed that no firearms will be allowed at Woodruff Park for the Peach Drop. Perhaps from the Mayor's Office??? However, according to state law, municipalities are forbidden to regulate the carrying of weapons on public property.

Off limits locations for weapons are regulated by state law alone. And state law authorizes the lawful carrying of weapons in ALL areas of the state, with certain exceptions, and public city parks ain't in the exception list. Period.

Just because the city hires Live Nation Entertainment to deejay and produce the event doesn't create a loophole in state preemption.

Sgt. Strozier told me that private security, not the APD, will be wanding for weapons.

Hopefully APD will follow state law and not partake in ejecting anyone from lawfully carrying a pistol or knife at the event. If anyone is barred from entry or ejected merely for lawfully carrying a weapon, I predict a lawsuit.

The City of Atlanta has ALREADY been successfully sued by Georgia Carry for trying to ban weapons in city owned parks.

If you are licensed to carry, here's how to get past the wanding:

Carry your pistol in a belly band type holster well below the waist. and wear a large metal belt buckle. The metal belt buckle will be your alibi for setting off the detector. They won't make you take off your pants. For ladies, they can carry their pistol in a hidden compartment in their purse, if they have one of that design.

Also, you can ankle carry. They will probably only be wanding at the waist, being too lazy to wand at the ankles. 

You don't and shouldn't have to be disarmed in a lawful carry location, especially in downtown Atlanta."

Will Mayor Reed have the guts to publicly admit to telling APD that no weapons will be allowed at a public city park, contrary to state law?

Local Atlanta News stations and the AJC should be reporting on this.

Perhaps some Open Records Requests should go to the city to get a copy of the contract for the private security firm to see what it's costing the tax-payers on top of the extra police presence.

If the extra police were enough to keep people safe, then the private security is only being used to keep out lawful carriers of weapons. There should be a lawsuit over this. 

Oh wait, there was one. The City of Atlanta tried to ban weapons in city parks before, and lost to Georgia Carry. Another one is needed perhaps?

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passed House © 2017 Phillip Evans

Fourteen Republican Turncoats voted no, and six Democrats voted yes. This shows that more than twice as many Republicans are willing to vote against their party platform than Democrats, at least on this issue.

At least, thankfully, it passed. Now we will see what the U.S. Senate will do. Hopefully, they will not water it down or otherwise muck it up with any screwy amendments. 

This bill should be called the Stop Putting Decent Citizens Behind Bars Act.

Ask Shaneen Allen, a young Black mother of 27 back in 2015, who had been robbed and beaten twice in her South Philadelphia neighborhood. So naturally, when she drove into the communist state of New Jersey, she was armed with her pistol merely for self-protection. She was licensed to carry in Pennsylvania, and didn't know that upon crossing state lines with her loaded gun, that she'd be subject to a felony charge.

When stopped for a minor traffic violation, she even volunteered to the NJ police officer that she was armed. Apparently, being honest does not count in tyrannical states. We should thank good King Chris Christie for magnanimously pardoning this peasant subject.  He never lobbied in his state for removing such laws that trap good citizens in the first place, hence my cynicism filled thanks to him.

H.R. 38 as currently written would put a stop to such evil treatment of free American citizens. It would turn back the clock on at least some Second Amendment Infringements.

It would also fix New York City's corrupt practice of issuing firearms carry permits to ONLY to the rich and/or politically connected. Visitors and NYC's own residents would no longer be FORCED by corrupt city politicians and other government officials to be unarmed in the face of criminals intent upon raping, robbing, and murdering them.

Don't get this fact wrong: Every single government official, politician, judge, and police officer who denies citizens exercising their right of self-defense HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDSAsk Carol Bowne about that. Oh, you can't. She'd dead, after waiting on a pistol permit approval that never came, while her life was under threat.

Folks, we are talking about a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT - a right that is NOT granted to us by government, but is rather ours just because we are human. It is a right supposedly GUARANTEED by our U.S. Constitution, but that hasn't worked so well. The fact that H.R. 38 is in the works is PROOF of that.

Now, here's your job: Contact your U.S. Senator and petition for H.R. 38 to be passed as written.

Some pro-liberty advocates fear that H.R. 38, while well intended, would have the bad effect of putting the Federal Camel Nose under the tent. My answer to that? We are well past that point my friends. Plenty of anti-liberty Federal laws and regulations already affect gun owners. Time for a few that turn the tide.

No state should have the authority to deny your basic humans rights. So called "states rights" was NEVER meant to go that far.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Politician - Don't Offend Robbers © 2017 Phillip Evans

Right now, the plexiglass has to come down...We want to make sure that there isn’t this sort of indignity, in my opinion, to serving food through a plexiglass only in certain neighborhoods,” Bass told WTXF-TV.

The issue more important to her than employees not bleeding from bullet holes, is the feeling of "indignity" shoppers might get upon seeing such security measures as thick glass or plexiglass in front of a counter.

Hey, can someone please dial (215) 686-3424 and explain to Councilwoman Bass the indignity a store clerk could feel when a piece of lead from a robber's gun pierces their body?

Bass told WTXF-TV that stores could implement other security measures instead, such as cameras and security guards.

Apparently, according to Bass, security guards would not be offensive to customers. Well, that's a relief that no one would be offended at that. We must protect "feelings" after all.

Hey, here's an idea for the owners and clerks that work in these stores, if Bass's bill passes: 

EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE openly carry your holstered pistol on your hip while at work.

Philadelphia can't pass a law against being armed in public, if you're licensed to carry.

And if you can't have some thick glass shielding you, then wear a bullet-resistant vest as well. Of course, if you do that, Bass will want to make you adhere to a dress code of no body armor wearing while at work. 

To hear it from Bass, you must be vulnerable to armed robbers so as to not be offensive to your customers. I bet the career robbers are hoping her bill passes. You know they are!

The real issue is that Bass is a bigot who is embarrassed that most violent crimes in those neighborhoods are committed by Black criminals, and she wants to punish store owners, many who are Korean, who just want to be safe. Instead of them spending a few hundred dollars for some glass shields, she wants them to spend many thousands on security guards. 

Yeah, that'll teach Koreans for daring to have businesses in Black neighborhoods! Make them pay for making their unfair profits!

I really don't care what color criminals or victims are. Liberty guarantees we all have the right to protect ourselves and our own privately owned property as we, Free Americans, see fit.

When the goal and criteria for creating laws is protecting "feelings", much more than that could get hurt. People could die. Clearly, with Bass's bill, safety is NOT her concern. It's so typical of Democrats to be concerned with symbolism over substance.

Bass just wants to throw around her political weight as a "social justice warrior" to score racist points with those who agree with her bigotry.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Black Friday Mass Shooting That Wasn't © 2017 Phillip Evans

Nov. 24th, at Schlenker Automotive in Rockledge, Florida, Robert Lorenzo Bailey Jr. walked into the parking lot and used a pistol to murder one man and paralyze another. 

He had multiple ammunition magazines with him, and after shooting the two men outside, he went inside the repair shop and continued shooting. Fortunately for the multiple customers and employees inside the shop, two employees were armed and returned fire wounding Bailey and stopping his attack.

Photo by Google

Several more could have been wounded and killed. Thank goodness for those armed citizens! Lives were saved that day, indeed. No amount of 911 dialing and waiting for the police to arrive could have done any better that the first responders who were already on the scene as the event occurred. 

I wonder when anti-self-defense politicians will use this to start calling again for a ban on something or other. Oh wait, they won't. That's because this was a mass shooting didn't occur. It was preempted by two non-badged citizens who cared enough to take responsibility for their own safety, and that of others, by being armed with their own guns.

This is yet another example where "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun". Of course, most of the mass media either won't run this story, or will just give it a quick blurb and then move on. It doesn't fit their gun-grabbing propaganda, that only the police should be armed and not us "mere subjects".

"Progressives" would foolishly argue that if guns were banned, there wouldn't have been a bad guy shooter there in the first place. Even if the sale of all guns were stopped in the United States today, there are already 300 million firearms in the hands of about 100 million citizens. Bad guys will always find a way to get a gun, so pipe dreams don't belong at the adult discussion table on this topic.

Whether it's a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, whether it's ammo mags that hold less than 10 or more than 10 rounds, backward thinking "progressives" always focus on the tools, and threaten to criminalize millions of people merely for owning and enjoying various types of firearms and their accessories, for the actions of a tiny fraction of the population. For all their chest-beating about "fairness", that certainly does not seem fair. It certainly isn't anything related to liberty.

The focus should be on preparedness, and those two armed citizens proved you don't need special police or military training to stop a criminally insane person or terrorist who seeks to commit mass murder.

"Feeling safe" isn't safety. Safety is the ability to save yourself in case no one is around that can do it for you. The choice to be armed is a grownup decision made by those who understand that evil exists and sometimes must be stopped with bullets.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

President Trump's "No More Gun-Free Zones" Promise © 2017 Phillip Evans

During his presidential campaign, President Trump promised to get rid of gun-free zones at schools and military bases his first day in office. Actually, the way his speech sounded, it certainly seemed he understood that ANY "gun-free" zone is a killing field, with schools and military bases mentioned as examples. So let's see if he's serious about saving lives by restoring liberty.

Photo by Associated Press

He later clarified he meant that only resource officers and trained teachers would carry at schools. 

Well, that's better than nothing. Although, I'd like to ask President Trump if the lives of "regular" folks - you know, free American adult citizens, are important enough to be worthy of exercising their Second Amendment Rights even in schools, in case one of the few "only ones" aren't around to save them when a bad guy opens fire.

Lest anyone think I've given up on President Trump... Not a chance!

He's about a million times better than HiLiary would have been. He will hopefully have the opportunity to put two or three more pro-gun-rights Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, which should change the game considerably.

What I'd like to see is for him to press Speaker Paul (RINO) Ryan hard to get some pro-gun-rights bills out of their places of languish and onto the House floor for an honest vote.

How about State Reciprocity, for example, with H.R.38? Speaker Ryan stated this was not the time. What?! Rights delayed is rights DENIED. Someone needs to jerk a knot in the chain of this double-talker and remind him he once said:

Well, it's about time free Americans licensed to carry a firearm in one state should be able to cross any state line and do the same, without the threat of being locked behind bars like an animal, just for wanting to be able to protect themselves and their families from predators!

Some would argue, and I agree, that even having to apply and pay for a license (permission slip from the government) is itself an infringement. So if you do have a license to carry, why should it be deemed nothing more than a piece of paper when you want to see another part of your own country? Even a drivers license is treated better than that. 

I'd like to remind folks that there are many other "gun-free" zones such as unsecured Federal buildings like park visitor centers, libraries, museums, etc. Not to mention post offices

President Trump needs to get on the ball and start hammering Congress to get in gear to deal with these infringements of our God-given right to protect our lives from evil people. We're waiting on those promises...

Monday, November 20, 2017

Anti-Gunners Want A Dialogue...Yeah Right © 2017 Phillip Evans

I just ran across an interesting article that makes some excellent points. However, I'd like to add another perspective, though one which does not necessarily contradict the original article linked below:

The anti-gun-rights "progressives" are NOT interested in winning us over. They are NOT interested in having a heart to heart conversation with us. Their entire M.O. has been to demonize us by claiming that we are part of the problem of "gun violence". 

They demonize us indirectly by calling the NRA, "the enemy", all the while knowing that the NRA is composed of regular Janes and Joes across the country who just want their voices to be heard and have their rights upheld and protected.

They demonize us directly, like HiLiary Clinton did when she called us "deplorables". 

Battle of Guiliford Courthouse March 15th 1781

When these "progressives" claim to want a dialogue with us, it is merely a ruse to try and trick us into agreeing to further incremental infringements on our rights, while at the same time using the fake attempt at dialogue as a club to beat us with when we don't want to hear their nonsense.

Whenever they use the word "conversation", what they really have in mind is confiscation.

Oh, sometimes their politicians will soften the blow by offering a "grandfather clause" when offering bills that ban "dangerous assault weapons", so that those who already own them can keep them. 

How hypocritical! If these weapons were truly the root cause of "gun violence", letting them remain in non-government hands is contrary to what they are supposedly trying to accomplish, which supposedly is reducing crimes committed with them, right?

It's that slippery slope that Nancy Pelosi recently admitted to. All the while they laughed at us for our concern over confiscation, that's exactly what they were scheming to do. They want to make us into Great Britain. It's a goal they will not deviate from.

For that reason alone, they are evil. They are the enemies of liberty. The freedom fighters of the American Revolutionary War lost much blood repelling British tyranny. Now their modern day cronies are attempting the same thing bit by bit.

When one particular type of weapon is "reasonably" banned, it will be another, then another. And then you can forget about being able to get a license to carry even a single-shot muzzle-loading pistol in public. Your rights will be gone. Oh, you can still do some recreational shooting like they do in Britain. You'll just have to leave your approved firearm at the shooting range until next time.

In the meantime, you'll have to be content with your fists, feet, and walking cane to repel gangs of thugs with knives, clubs, and yes, even guns, who would rape, rob, beat, stab, shoot, and murder you and your family, like how happens so often in Britain.

They will get whatever infringements into law and erode the meaning of the U.S. Constitution by means of legislation and corrupt judges little by little, until the frog is slowly boiled by the gradual increase of the water temperature.

That's why we should never want nor attempt to engage them in any "dialogue". General George Washington's dialogue with the British were some well placed lead shot.

Right now we have the ballot box, but if that fails, we may need another General George Washington. Perhaps we should be glad the Federal Government still officially calls his birthday by his name, instead of "President's Day".

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Armed Robbery - Victim Feels Sorry For Attackers © Phillip Evans

Home Park Neighborhood
 Photo by Andrew Guyton

Ms. Kamen recounts:

"The taller man stood over me while I wrestled myself free of my purse strap, half of me struck with how helpless I was on the ground with a weapon pointed at me and the other half eerily calm, reasoning that he didn’t want to shoot me — he just wanted my stuff. The shorter man nabbed Sam’s wallet and they bolted for their car and sped off. I pulled myself to my feet. It was all over in seconds."

There are some striking things about her report. First of all, she was practically fighting with her purse strap in her eagerness to give up her "stuff" to the robbers. Second, was her keen awareness that she was indeed helpless. Third, is her concentrated self-assurance that she would be alright, which lulled her into an "eerie calm". What else could a helpless sheep do? 

Just give up your property and hope for the best, placing your trust in your attacker to not injure or kill you.

The general consensus of police across the country would be that she handled the situation well, and would receive an "A+" if this were a school assignment. But of course, we know that the situation handled her, for she had no other options available to her at the time of the robbery.

If she is 21 and otherwise qualifies, she can apply for and obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License, so that in the future she will have the option to not be helpless while on the street or in class at Georgia Tech.

Or she could just bury her head further in the sand and count this incident as her one and only time she will ever face a criminal attack, and therefore be forever happy being an unarmed sheep.

After discovering that she did make it through, she now has the luxury of warm fuzzy feelings for her attackers. One might wonder if Ms. Kamen would "feel sorry" for her attackers if she had been raped or had received a cracked skull. Sometimes the "stuff" they want is your body. Remember that if you decide in advance that you will eagerly "just give it up", when they demand it.

Perhaps Ms. Kamen is destined to always be victim material. Some people are, and they like it that way. Getting to be a victim survivor and emoting compassion for your attackers can be a heady thing for some folks. She can now be a spokesperson for something or other now.

She reported that she had tried to run, but tripped and fell. Ah, so things like this is where the movies got that idea! The "empowerment" feminists could be right - women are just too clutsy to handle a firearm and defend themselves. 

Guns are just meant to be handled by men, some of which are bad guys that prey upon women. But women can comply and live to fight for "gun control". 

Hey, anyone got any advice for women being raped, robbed, and murdered in Great Britain by thugs with knives?

You can read the Clery Act Safety Alert report here: 

Disarmament Crowd Twists Bible © 2017 Phillip Evans

A mass shooting happens in a Texas Baptist church and out from the woodwork they come - all kinds.

The Hollywood clueless continue to line up to mock Christians for calling for prayer in the aftermath of these murders. I presume they would rather we call for "gun control". You know, be willing to lose our liberties as punishment for the acts of evil doers.

Sorry, not sorry. I will always be armed with my gun when in church, or anywhere else it's legal to carry. I am armed for the safety of myself, my family, and to whatever extent possible, for the safety of others around me.

A commentator (and I have no idea if this person is pro-gun-rights or not) mocks in an online comment"If one believes in God -- what's the point of security measures in a church? I mean, think it through." - The Pale Orc

I replied to The Pale Orc: "One believes in God and has security measures because God, in His sovereignty, does not provide blanket protections for believers in this world, otherwise people would be clamoring to come to Him for the wrong reasons. 

He works through both divine intervention at times and also allows us to have a part in both our physical safety against crime and accidents, as well as our health. Believers are even subject to physical death, yet we still believe because the One who rose from the dead, the Lord Jesus Christ, will one day resurrect our physical bodies to be made new like His, to never die again."

Not all anti-self-defense proponents are leftist "progressives". Some can be actual Christians who handle the Bible like a five year old child handles a sharp knife - very carelessly.

The following is two comments and my replies posted at:


For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
As to protecting God's people, it's God's duty.."

That is a gross mishandling of the Word of God. God allows us to play a part in our own protection as well as that of our brothers and sisters, and neighbors. Who is our neighbor? Anyone we have the opportunity to show mercy to.

If you saw a lady being punched by a purse grabber, are you just going to watch her get pummeled and say it's God's duty to help her? Do you lock your doors? Why so, isn't it God's duty to protect you?

If I was in church with my pistol, wouldn't you want me to use it to stop an armed criminal who comes in shooting? Or would you tell me to put it away, because it's God's duty to do something? 


"Carlos Santiago 

All things are worked according to our God's plan. Consider Matthew 25 :Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Jesus the Savior did not use violence as a tool of Evangelistic followers. Many Old Testament warriors accomplished the Lord's purpose with the Law and with Battle. I think things have changed with the New Covenant. We should instead spend our focus on being prayer warriors."

Jesus told Peter that, because Peter was operating outside the will of God. Peter had already been told Jesus would be betrayed and would give His life as a ransom. Prior to this, Jesus told His disciples to make provision for their physical safety with a sword, because He would no longer be with them in the flesh.

Of course neither Jesus nor His disciples needed any weapons at all during Jesus' earthly ministry. His divine power kept them all safe from all harm in His direct presence. God allows us to be subject to calamities in this life, and gives us the responsibility to do our own due diligence to make provisions for health, safety, food, etc. 

If you see an elderly person being assaulted by a criminal, are you just going to offer up prayers instead of coming to their aid? Really? Folks, please have some common sense here.

Fervent prayer by God's people is real and is powerful, but it is never a substitute for taking action when we are able to. You don't pray for money to buy food when you have no plans to get a job, for example.

Likewise, you don't pray for divine protection when you don't take at least some personal responsibility for your safety and that of your family knowing that evil people exist in this world, and knowing that when they strike you will need to have an effective means to stop them.

That doesn't mean you have to always go about heavily armed. A small pocket pistol is far better than nothing. Mass murderers have always stopped their attacks and either fled or committed suicide at the first instance of armed resistance. They are cowards.

When you get a chance google "Saint James Church massacre". Briefly:

In 1993, in a church in Cape Town, South Africa, one member of the congregation, Charl van Wyk armed only with a 5 or 6 shot revolver repelled multiple heavily armed terrorists after they had killed eleven people, saving many other lives. 

Will you be prepared? It doesn't always happen to other people.

Monday, November 6, 2017

Texas Church Massacre © 2017 Phillip Evans

Sunday morning November 5th, 2017, Devin Patrick Kelley entered First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas and opened fire with a rifle killing 26 people and injuring 24.

Neither the shepherd nor the flock had any means of effective defense available to them. I'm fairly positive several had cell phones, and probably at least one person was able to dial 911 to summon the police. After that, their only defense was to try and hide and wait for the police to arrive.

Suggested Church Carry Anti-threat Tool

Was it their fault they were murdered and wounded that day? Certainly not. All of the moral fault goes to the murderer. Were they willfully unarmed? Yes, but that is the prerogative of every human being to not be armed. Why should they have been armed? Massacres are thankfully rare, and besides, the readers of this article are not likely to be involved in one. They usually happen to other folks.

Unfortunately that day, it happened to them. So what sort of "blame" should they have for not being prepared to save their own lives? Honestly none. It's their lives and the lives of their children. It was their right to place whatever value they had on them and to act or not act accordingly. Could one imagine that if they had valued their lives a little more that they would have been prepared to defend those lives? Well, that contemplation would just be begging the question, wouldn't it?

A neighbor got involved and shot the murderer as he was fleeing, then pursued him along with another neighbor driving his personal vehicle. And the armed neighbor and driver wore no uniform nor badge but were there on the scene as first responders before the badged and uniformed second responders arrived.

Oh that there would have been such neighbors INSIDE the church that morning! Don't you agree? But I'm just wishing that because of the value I place on human life. Don't let anyone think I am judging the victims. As I said before, victims have the right to place whatever value they have on their own lives.

A couple of neighbors inside the church with holstered pistols under their coats would have meant far less victims yesterday. I don't care if you disagree. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

Just who is our neighbor? Our Lord Jesus, in Luke 10:37, shows us that our neighbor is anyone we have the opportunity to show mercy to.

This is why I will always be armed with my pistol in church. Not just to save my own life and family, but to also show mercy to my neighbors if and when necessary.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Philips Arena in Atlanta - Security Theater

Want to see a big name music concert, comedy act, Hawks basketball game, or Disney on Ice? Well then, Philips Arena is your go-to spot in Atlanta.

It's owned by the Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority, in other words, it's city owned property.

Per Georgia state law (HB 60 from 2014), this public property is legally open to licensed carriers of firearms, even though it qualifies as a "government building" under OCGA 16-11-127. However, since they have weapons screening at their events, they can prohibit armed citizens (
licensed or not) from entering the building.

There's a catch, though. Their "security screening" is far less thorough than TSA style security screenings, and you know even the TSA misses stuff. One man even mistakenly flew on an airline recently with a loaded pistol in his carry-on baggage, on a domestic flight from Atlanta to Chicago.

And another case where a police officer mistakenly flies with her pistol on an international flight:

If you are a good guy and want to attend an event at Philips Arena, but prefer to remain armed for your safety and that of your family, here's how you can get around their metal detectors:

Wear a large belt buckle and use a sticky type holster inside your pants. I have knowledge that this has worked rather well. Wear pants a little bit larger so you won't be bulging. Also, you could wear your pistol in an ankle holster. As of the date of this article, they are not wanding ankles. 

You will need to wear some metal item not easily removed as a decoy for your gun beeping the metal detectors, even with ankle carry. They do not require folks to remove articles of clothing at this time, at least not belts or shoes.

Don't think I'm giving bad guys any ideas. All of this is pretty elementary stuff on how to bypass metal detectors. This is all public info, and believe me, Philips Arena security and the APD there ALL know about it. Yet, their desire to get people in quickly overrides any security concerns over firearms getting in.

Why would they want to hold up the lines any more than they already do? Time is money, and this proves: 1. This is Security Theater (appearances to pacify the sheep that something is being done) 2. Money is more important than actual security.

If they really wanted to keep out weapons, they would at least have TSA style screening. Though that would not be 100%, it would be several times more effective than what they have now. Currently, at least half a dozen guns are getting in at each and every large event there. Don't doubt me!

Thursday, August 17, 2017

X-Factor Style "Entertainment" © 2017 Phillip Evans

Since there is no way I can avoid appearing to be an old curmudgeon while opining on this topic, I may as well go all out and relish and roll around in it, and make the pleasure of writing this article a savored experience.

Trust me, I will eventually get to the X-Factor stuff and even talk about Simon Cowell, but it will take a little while, but not too long for those who worship instant gratification. 

Photo by See Li

Warning: Brash Opinions Up Ahead! Please take a detour if any criticism of pop culture tends to trigger you, LOL!

First, a little history as a backdrop to help provide some illustration. Of what exactly, I'm not sure, but it is something.

Elvis Presley. Need I say more? He was truly one of the greatest entertainment stars that ever lived.

That is not because he was one of the greatest vocalists in the world. He was not. He was, however, the complete package. He was good looking, had some great dance moves, loads of charisma, and he could actually sing on pitch most of the time without help from modern gimmicks such as Auto-Tune that today's singers often rely heavily on.

And the natural quality of his voice had a pleasantness to it, combined with his vocal skill to produce pure sounding notes.

One reason I admire both Elvis' and Michael Jackson's vocal ability is that they could scream or growl a note, while still maintaining the ability to make pure vocal sounds whenever they wanted. And were able to do so throughout their entire careers - not an easy feat, apparently.

Singers like Joe Cocker, Rod Stewart, Neil Diamond, and Kenny Rogers sounded pretty good with their gravel voices early in their careers, but by depending almost solely on that to bring emotion to their songs, and by not doing it carefully with an eye to their vocal health, they wore down their voices to a caricature of what they once were. 

But kudos to Kenny Rogers for once publicly admitting to singing too throaty and hurting his voice. Most such singers try to pretend this hasn't happened to them and still belt it out trying to regain the lost magic that obviously left the building a long time ago.

Not all overly rough voices sound awful. I enjoyed listening to Bonnie Tyler years ago even when she had vocal issues, and could not sing a clear note at that time for all the tea in China. Sure, it was a shock when I first heard her, but she was so good I couldn't help but enjoy her singing. Once her vocal chords healed, she was even better with Eclipse Of The Heart in later years.

I have no idea what happened to golden-voiced Anne Murray. The lovely Canadian songbird early in her career always sang pure notes. She never pushed her voice hard that I could tell, but now she can't help but growl when she sings, and it is not easy on the ears like a vocally injured Bonnie Tyler was.

I recall hearing a live album or recording of a live show many years ago by Contemporary Christian Artist Sandi Patty, who talked about trying to emulate singer Karen Carpenter when she was young. She then gave the audience an imitation of Karen Carpenter singing, going out of her way to sound gravely. Sorry Sandi, but Karen did not sound like that at all. Karen had one of the most pure vocal sounds there ever was in recorded music.

Now on to shows like X-Factor. I get it. They are there to make shows to make money, and do so on the backs of kids and young adults dreaming to make it big. It's a willing exploitation on both sides, but the kids seem to get the shortest end of the stick.

Most of them are destined to grow old talking about how they sang a few times in front of millions, with little else to show for it.

Simon Cowell, out of all judges on any of these type shows I've seen gets it right more times than anyone else gets it right. He gently slaps dreamers out of their starry visions of splendor back down to reality, and the ones this happens to badly need it. 

They desperately need to get their heads back down in order to plan out a realistic future in medicine, law, engineering, aviation, etc, because they simply can't cut it as a singer no matter how much their moms and dads tell them they can, who glare at the judges when they don't appreciate their baby's star potential.

But it's not all rosy for Simon. Just because he has first place in getting things right doesn't mean he misses. And he misses quite a bit, gushing over young ones who don't stand a chance, merely because the present audience hoots and hollers for them. At least that's the only reason apparent to me.

Yes, it is show business, so Mr. Cowell can't shoot down too many of them, or that would not be sporting. It would make for gloomy TV. So some tender dreams must unfortunately be strung along for a time, only to come crashing down later, taking an even greater toll on those who wanted it so badly. 

I suppose the earlier history lesson should really be a lesson to the gravely-voiced young wannabe singers of today, whose overly-affected voices strainingly growl out "note" after "note" egged on by an audience that wouldn't know pure singing if it bit them on their derriere. 

For if these "singers" do somehow make it on the strength of their looks and booty-shaking or an overly produced electronic wonder song, their careers will be short-lived from vocal abuse.

But I believe this is in large part because most people these days are generally deaf. As in cannot hear at all, unless the volume is cranked up so high as to have their knees knocking together much less the anvil, stirrup, and hammer bones in their inner ears.

Case in point: Everywhere there is any sort of public address system or intercom in any theme park or other public attraction, it always annoyingly blasts someone's exaggerated vocal inflections describing what you're seeing or providing some little known facts into the ear-bleed decibel range.

This usually happens when you're a captive audience and can't flee, such as in a box three-hundred feet in the air with thirty other people pressing the wind out of you.

All, and I mean all, music concerts or festivals are the same way volume-wise. Finally, there are the plentiful boorish yahoos in crowds that always want to have a screaming contest between them, especially when they are right behind or next to you.

The only thing I can conclude is that the general public simply cannot hear the gravel or screaming in a singer's voice, far as I can surmise. If they see a good looking "singer" with lips moving, they just assume it's good and fall all over themselves.

What got me thinking about all this is the poor little blond girl on a new X-Factor show who got showered with all sorts of applause and praise, even from Simon Cowell, but who seemed convinced that screeching was identical to singing. 

When they start out that young deliberately trying to damage their voices for a million-to-one shot at fame and fortune, that's just pathetic. And it's borderline criminal when big money making shows aid and abet them in doing so.

Just once, instead of Simon lavishing praise on one like that, or Mel B. drawing out a long over-the-top British accent to do the same, I'd like to hear them say this:

"Come back and sing for us again when you are recovered from your cold or sore throat, and if you're not ill, then please get a vocal coach to help you produce actual singing notes instead of gravely screeches. Do that and you might go far, just like Elvis."

Note: This is a departure from my usual line of topics. Sometimes it's good to take a break. Let there be liberty for real singing! ;-)