Douva

Private schools in Texas fall under the same state prohibition against concealed carry as public schools. I would imagine that the same is probably true in Florida. Nobody on the campus of Virginia Tech need a gun to defend themselves until a lunatic there shot 47 people. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and that Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, were both "safe" places until madmen went on killing sprees there. The University of Texas campus was and still is a very safe campus, statistically speaking, but that didn't stop a madman from shooting 43 people. Mass shootings don't usually occur at crack houses and inner city schools. But that's all really neither here nor there because the point remains that, in a free country, a right should not be denied simply because a "need" for that right cannot be proven. As I said before, if it cannot be shown through empirical evidence that granting a right will cause the rights of others to be infringed upon, that right should not be denied. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Kallend, you keep ignoring the fact that both Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and I AGREE with you that PRIVATE schools have the right to deny concealed carry, if they so wish. Also, you seem ignorant of the fact that eleven of the thirty-six "shall-issue" states specifically prohibit concealed carry on the campus of any college or university, public or private. As for airports, Los Alamos National Lab, courthouses, and the federal Capitol building, all of those places have metal detectors, X-ray machines, and a high ratio of armed guards to visitors. Like SCCC, I accept being disarmed when the institution doing the disarming assumes responsibility for my safety. And by "assumes responsibility," I mean that the institution actually ensure that EVERYBODY, not just law abiding citizens who heed posted signs, is disarmed, and that the institution provide enough trained, armed guards to defend me when I cannot defend myself. If colleges want to post metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance, we'll shut up. But I don't think you'll get much support for that idea once students and faculty realize they'll have to show up two hours early for every class (three hours if it's an international studies class). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This time last week, there were only a few thousand people who even knew that the Empty Holster Protest was planned. The level of participation in a little-known protest should not be interpreted as indicative of the level of support for the cause being protested. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Nope. I'm in engineering and physics, emotion rules in those fields. Private colleges can make any rules they please. If there were a real demand, students would go to the colleges that allowed guns and the others would have to follow suit or lose enrollment. LOL! Yeah, I guess I shouldn't discount the role emotion plays in the sciences. I agree 100% that private colleges should be able to make whatever rules they want. In fact, it even says as much on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website. However, public college are limited in the rules they make, and one of those limitations should be a rule against prohibiting concealed carry. As for the question of "demand," this is not a nation in which rights are granted only to the majority. If it cannot be shown through empirical evidence that granting a right will cause the rights of others to be infringed upon, that right should not be denied. There is little or no observable data suggesting that allowing concealed carry on college campuses would infringe upon anyone's rights any more than does allowing concealed carry in most other places; therefore, the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses should not be denied. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

As to questions about the number of participating campuses, this protest was a grassroots effort organized by college students whose operating budget came entirely from their own pockets. With their only real resource being the social networking site Facebook, they gathered over 7,000 members to their organization and convinced about 550 students and faculty members on about 120 campuses to put all fear of ridicule aside and wear empty holsters to class, as part of a nationwide protest. This event that Kallend decries as insignificant is a grassroots movement in its infancy. And this infant movement created such a stir that The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent its president to debate the issue with the executive officer of Gun Owners of America, live on Fox News. These student protesters accomplished their goals of starting a dialogue about this issue and informing those unfamiliar with this issue of the facts. In the last week, representatives of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus appeared on CNN, Fox News, and more local and regional TV and radio stations than I care to count. The protest was reported in local newspapers throughout the nation, and the issue was debated in campus newspapers from coast to coast. The effects even spill into next week, as SCCC continues to receive requests for representatives to appear on national TV and radio shows. Denying that this protest had an impact is naive. MILLIONS of people heard these students make their case. And these students have a strong case supported by facts and evidence. In an intelligent debate, facts and evidence trump emotional rhetoric and "what ifs" every time. I'm pretty sure that's something they teach you in college. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Excerpt from www.ConcealedCampus.com: Answers to the Most Common Arguments Against Concealed Carry on College Campuses Argument: "Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime." Answer: "Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes." *“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997); “An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association Argument: "It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to violence is ‘more guns.’" Answer: "One might have just as easily told Edward Jenner, the man who discovered in the late eighteenth century that the cowpox virus could be used to inoculate people against smallpox, 'It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to disease is "more viruses.'" Argument: "Guns on campus would distract from the learning environment." Answer: "Ask anyone in a concealed carry state when he or she last noticed another person carrying a concealed handgun. The word 'concealed' is in there for a reason. Concealed handguns would no more distract college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs." Argument: "Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons." Answer: "Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters and office buildings, where concealed handgun license holders are already allowed to carry their firearms. The widespread passage of concealed handgun laws has not let to a spate of shootings or gun thefts at movie theaters and office buildings." Argument: "A person with a gun could ‘snap’ and go on a killing spree." Answer: "Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A person’s downward spiral toward violence is usually accompanied by numerous warning signs." Argument: "A dangerous person might jump someone who was carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm." Answer: "Even assuming this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual." Argument: "Dorms are notoriously vulnerable to theft. It would be too easy for someone to steal an unattended firearm from a dorm." Answer: "The vulnerability of dorms to theft does not necessitate a campus-wide ban on concealed carry by licensed individuals. There are numerous other options, from community gun lockers to small, private gun safes that can be secured to walls, floors, bed frames, etc." Argument: "It’s possible that a gun might go off by accident." Answer: "Accidental discharges are very rare—particularly because a handgun’s trigger is typically not exposed when it is concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury. SCCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a negligible risk." Argument: "It’s unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license." Answer: "Nineteen of the thirty-two victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were over the age of twenty-one (the legal age limit for obtaining a concealed handgun license in Virginia)." Argument: "Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant." Answer: "If you're going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you'd better be within an arm's length of him, be standing on firm ground, not have any obstacles between you and him, and be in relatively good physical condition. If the assailant is standing four feet away, you're probably out of luck. If you're sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you're probably out of luck. If there is a desk between you and the assailant, you're probably out of luck. And if you're elderly or disabled, you're probably out of luck. Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no match for a bullet fired from eight feet away. Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of training, in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?" Argument: "Colleges are emotionally volatile environments. Allowing guns on campus will turn classroom debates into crime scenes." Answer: "Before concealed handgun laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootings. This did not prove to be the case*. The same responsible adults--age twenty-one and above--now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else they go--office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses." Argument: "The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?" Answer: "This is NOT a debate about keeping firearms out of the hands of college students. This is a debate about allowing licensed individuals to carry their concealed firearms into campus buildings, the same way they carry them virtually everywhere else they go. College students can already legally purchase firearms, and every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither put guns into the hands of more college students nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence." Argument: "In an active shooter scenario, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse." Answer: "What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How can any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?" Argument: "The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it's been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only about 15%, in the field." Answer: "Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm's way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby's Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from pointblank range. A person doesn't have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away. It is highly unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed citizen and a deranged killer would lead to more lives lost than would simply allowing an onslaught of execution-style murders to continue unchecked. Contrary to what the movies might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last less than ten seconds*. Even the real Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants, lasted only about thirty seconds and ended with only three of the participants being killed. It is unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled. And if the assailant were disabled, he would be unable to do any more harm." *In The Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Institute of Justice, 1997 Argument: "How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed students and armed assailants?" Answer: "This hasn't been an issue with concealed carry license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It's not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys--from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians--in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the civilians, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the civilians." Argument: "Some states allow citizens to be issued concealed handgun licenses at the age of 18." Answer: "Among the thirty-six ‘shall-issue’ states*—states where local jurisdictions are required to issue a concealed handgun permit to any qualifying citizen—six states allow, without special provision, for any person eighteen years or older to be issued a concealed handgun license. These states are Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota. “Based on the FBI/Department of Justice violent crime statistics for the year 2006, the crime rates for these seven states, when ranked with all fifty states and the District of Columbia, rank as follows: Indiana – 30 Montana – 42 South Dakota – 47 New Hampshire – 48 North Dakota – 50 Maine – 51 “Not only are Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota four of the five** U.S. states with the lowest crime rates, Montana has the tenth lowest crime rate, and Indiana isn’t even in the top 50%. Clearly these states’ lenient concealed handgun laws are not breeding generations of young violent offenders. “The extraordinarily low crime rates in these six states, coupled with the fact that these states have a combined population of only about 10,900,000 (approximately 1.6 million less than the combined population of America’s two largest cities—New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA—and at approximately 1/3 the combined violent crime rate of those two cities) has lead Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to focus on the majority of ‘shall-issue’ states where the minimum age to receive a concealed handgun license is 21.” *Alaska (licenses are offered but not required to carry a concealed handgun), Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming **Vermont is ranked at 49—the third least violent state. Vermont neither requires nor offers a license to carry a concealed handgun. From the horse’s mouth: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." -- Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97 "I ... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless." -- Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97 "Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County VA Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97 "I was wrong. But I'm glad to say I was wrong." -- Arlington County VA Police Detective Paul Larson, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97 "The concerns I had - with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons - we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Excerpt from www.ConcealedCampus.com: Students for Concealed Carry on campus is a non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 7,000 college students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens (about 90% college students and 10% faculty, parents, and concerned citizens) who support the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. In the wake of recent school shootings, such as the massacre at Virginia Tech, SCCC contends it is now abundantly clear that “gun free zones” serve to disarm only those law abiding citizens who might be able to mitigate such tragedies. Both the membership and the leadership of SCCC are made up of individuals with very diverse political backgrounds. Among SCCC’s organizers you'll find at least on conservative Republican, at least one liberal Democrat, and at least one moderate Independent. SCCC has two main objectives. The first objective is to educate the public about the facts of concealed carry and dispel the many myths about concealed carry. The second objective is to push state legislatures and school administrations to grant concealed handgun license holders the same right—the right to carry concealed handguns—on college campuses that these license holders currently enjoy at most other places (movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, etc). Because SCCC fully supports states' rights, it is our policy to push for change at the state level, rather than at the federal level. The first step is to see "colleges" removed from the lists of places listed as "off limits" by the concealed carry laws in many states. The next step is to see other states follow Utah's lead in prohibiting state (tax subsidized) colleges from enacting their own bans on concealed carry. SCCC does not feel that it is sufficient for states to leave this decision up to public colleges because school administrators typically interpret this CHOICE as a question of liability and, therefore, almost always rule to prohibit concealed carry on campus. Though it may sound cynical, most school administrators would rather risk having 32 dead students and faculty members (from a Virginia Tech-style massacre) for which they are not liable than risk having one injured student or faculty member (from an accident involving a firearm the administrators chose to allow on campus) for which they might be held liable. Taking the choice away from schools absolves them of liability. Though SCCC supports concealed carry on the campuses of both public and private colleges, we strongly support the rights of private property owners; therefore, we believe that the issue of concealed carry at private colleges must be handled through negotiations with school administrators, rather than through state legislation. SCCC supports the legalization of CONCEALED carry by LICENSED individuals on COLLEGE campuses. SCCC has no official position on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses of primary or secondary schools. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is not affiliated with the NRA, a political party or any other organization. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I finally gave up trying to read through these posts, since apparently none of you (on either side of the debate) bothered to go to http://www.ConcealedCampus.com and look at the facts of what Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is proposing. As for the article, it's not a persuasive article in support of allowing concealed carry on college campuses; it's a persuasive article in support of fostering intelligent, informed discussions of the issue. Newspapers don't usually print propaganda pieces chocked full of stats, so I instead chose to write an article attacking the notion that concealed carry on college campuses is not an issue worthy of debate. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

"A group of 12 students chose to wear empty holsters to class this week at the University of Idaho as part of the nationwide protest." Ooooh - that's 0.109% of the enrollment there. Major protest. "Aled Baker, a junior, said he loses his constitutional right to protect himself and others when he steps on campus." Which article of the Constitution gives the right to protect others when on someone else's property? Just curious. Yes, because we all know that the only people who oppose the war in Iraq are the people standing on street corners with signs. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has about 7100 members, nationwide. As far as I know, the largest national group dedicated to preventing concealed carry on college campuses has about 450. State (tax subsidized) schools are public property. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

If any of you have ever tried to get an op-ed piece published in a major newspaper, you know that it's pretty difficult. Op-ed pieces aren't like letters to the editor--Newspapers get a lot of submissions and only publish a handful of op-eds from non-regular contributors. Getting an op-ed piece published is also an issue of time. I didn't have time to shop the piece to every newspaper in the country. Nobody would have published it next week, after the protest was over. The Washington Times was my first choice, as I knew they were the most likely nationally recognized newspaper to publish it. And yes, I know how an exclusive works. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm on my old desktop computer right now. It's getting the job done while my laptop is in the shop. I didn't realize when I deleted my original post in this thread that it had already received responses--I figured nobody had seen it in time, so I just deleted it. The interview went well. It probably wasn't the most articulate interview I've ever given, since it was at least two hours earlier than I'm used to waking up, but I made good solid points. I've coordinated and given more interviews in the last week than I can count. It's been a positive experience, but I'm really glad that this week is almost over. I have two interviews scheduled for next week, but hopefully that will be it for a while (for me personally, anyway). And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, it's over in Speaker's Corner, under the thread title "My Article in the Washington Times." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, since I honestly don't have the energy to get caught up in this debate on yet another front, so please excuse me if this link has already been posted. Fox News article on the Empty Holster Protest: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

For any of you who are interested, there is an op-ed piece I wrote in today's edition of The Washington Times. CLICK HERE to read it online. The editors changed one of the direct quotes to a paraphrase, which makes it a little less effective, but other than that it came out okay. --W. Scott "Douva" Lewis PS. If you want more information on the issue, or if you want to know why I take the position I do, go to http://www.ConcealedCampus.com. I haven't eaten or slept in a month--I've spent every waking moment debating this issue (and occasionally working, but mostly just debating this issue), so I'm going to stay out of any resulting debate. Maybe I'll check back in a month or so, after my batteries have had a chance to recharge, and answer any questions or arguments. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

They deleted my skysurfing video, as well as the stolen BASE jumping video from his page, and they claim they're looking into whether or not his entire profile should be deleted. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I had to send YouTube a lengthy official statement (a lot of "I swear under penalty of perjury" type of stuff) that it was my video and that he wasn't authorized to post it. That's why they removed it. I've talked to one of the wingsuit flyers from the "Summer Fun" video. I think they feel too sorry for the guy to contribute to the destruction of his fantasy world. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

MySpace finally removed my skysurfing video and the BASE video from his page. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm pretty sure the MySpace administrators are just fucking with me now. Mine is the video featuring the skysurfer who looks EXACTLY LIKE ME! I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Let's see if my new "salute" is enough to convince MySpace that I am who I say I am: http://www.lastskysurfing.com/myspace_salute I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

At this point I am less upset with him than I am with MySpace. Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! If I have to send them another photo, I'll definitely be holding up at least one finger in it. Are there any attorneys on here who want to draft a letter for me? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Because I have this: http://www.lastskysurfingteam.com/myspace_salute I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So, Should we all contact myspace and let him know he's claiming shit as his own? the only thing theyll do ,at the most is delete his account. Not yet. I emailed everyone on his top friends list and explained the situation. I included a link to http://www.lastskysurfing.com, where he stole the video. I'd rather he suffer a little public humiliation than simply lose his MySpace account. Brilliant! That's awesome. The hot blonde with the number one spot on his friends list was quite upset with me. I'm pretty sure she--his "fiance"--is just another bogus account created by the same loser. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So, Should we all contact myspace and let him know he's claiming shit as his own? the only thing theyll do ,at the most is delete his account. Not yet. I emailed everyone on his top friends list and explained the situation. I included a link to http://www.lastskysurfing.com, where he stole the video. I'd rather he suffer a little public humiliation than simply lose his MySpace account. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Here is his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/home4goodnow The video is posted there, also. And I SERIOUSLY doubt those BASE jumping videos are really his either. Anyone who's still trying to figure out where he claims credit for Jeff's and my video should watch the very end of the clip. Over the last few seconds of the clip, he superimposed text that says: Featuring Kevin Chainey (KCHAINE) Videography and Editing By A. Diaz (ADIZ) I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That's my good buddy Bryan who got me banned for two weeks by logging onto my DZ.com account and launching a personal attack against another member. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.