OddStuffing – Page 11

Gun Confiscation Made Easier

This week the California legislature made progress on new ways to deny residents their Second Amendment rights by moving forward on a number of new anti-gun bills. None have anything to do with reducing crime or punishing criminals. All are aimed at taking gun rights – and guns, from law-abiding citizens. One of the most dangerous is AB 2607, an expansion of California’s unique in the nation Gun Violence Restraining Order law. This Bill would add employers, coworkers, mental health workers and employees of secondary or postsecondary schools to the list of persons who could deny you of your Second Amendment rights without due process.

For those who are unaware of how we got here, California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law came in the aftermath of the Santa Barbara murders of six individuals – three stabbed, three shot plus an additional 14 injured – by a disturbed college student who killed himself as police tracked him down.

The perpetrator had posted a number of disturbing videos online. Disturbing to the point where his family contacted the police about them. Six law enforcement members, four deputies, a university police officer and a dispatcher in training spoke with him outside his apartment. While typically two deputies are sent on welfare checks, officials said they sent a bigger response because they “were familiar with (him*)”. Before, during or after the 10-minute conversation with him, none of the law enforcement there, or at the two departments, looked at any of the videos or checked to see if he had firearms registered to him; an easy check in California. Shortly after the visit, the perpetrator took down the videos so as not to be discovered. He carried out his plans 30 days later.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, “The fact of the matter is our gun laws are so weak that when someone openly exhibits that violent behavior, they can still access guns.”

Hours (emphasis on HOURS) after the Isla Vista shooting, Nancy Skinner, a California state assemblywoman from Berkeley, drafted a bill that would create a system for “gun violence restraining orders” in which relatives, friends and intimate partners could ask a judge to temporarily block someone who is exhibiting violent tendencies from getting a firearm.

I’m going to make a comment here which may not go over very well with some people and for that, I apologize. While the internal departmental reviews concluded the officers acted appropriately, I say the California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law is a political knee-jerk overreaction that came into being from an inadequate police response.

Six law enforcement personnel on scene, plus however many in dispatch in two departments, were aware of the videos and nobody thought to look at them. While the officers may not have had the “right” to search his room, nobody thought to ask for consent either. We’ll never know if the information from a firearms registration search and the videos, combined with the family’s report would have lead the officers to do a more in-depth interview or search. But summarily rejecting the investigatory value of that information and advocating a ‘we need more laws’ attitude is an insult to all officers who do the job.

Having succeeded at getting their foot in the door with a new way to strip you of your rights, California wants to extend this no due-process tool to a larger group. Any of your managers, coworkers or employees can say you are a danger to yourself or others – real or imagined – and your rights and firearms will be taken away. Consider the power anyone at your company will have, someone who didn’t get a promotion, got a bad evaluation or just doesn’t like that you own firearms. While making a false report is a misdemeanor, nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove what was said in a private conversation.

The burden of proof then falls on YOU to dispute the accusations to get your rights back and your property returned. The costs, not counting your own time, will easily be in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars over months to years for legal expenses and costs associated with getting your firearms returned.

If you don’t live in California and think this will never happen where you live, think again. California likes to believe they lead the nation in rights smashing laws. Depending on how the elections go in November, this could very well affect you next.

If there is ever a time to get involved, it is now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #gunconfiscation, #2ndamendment, #firearmsrestrainingorder

* I don’t find it necessary to carry on the legacy of psychopaths by continuing to name them.

Arsenals, Stockpiles and Caches – Oh My!

We’ve all seen the press conferences where a high-ranking law enforcement official or political gun grabber stands up with a crew of concerned cronies looking on from behind. In front of them, a table of scary looking guns and accessories is displayed. The description of the items usually includes terms such as ‘high-powered’, ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’. Then, the requisite quote to emphasize how serious this really is: I’ve never seen a stockpile like this in all my years…

Whether called arsenals, stockpiles, caches or something else, the perp walk of guns is also commonly witnessed as ‘evidence’ is being staged on the front lawn of the suspect in question. The spectacle serves no crime fighting purpose other than to scare the neighbors and let the invited press get some good close-ups so the story will stick in the mind of potential jurors. I suppose it does also send a message. If you have a lot of guns and ammo, this could happen to you.

Just to be perfectly clear: I do NOT object to removing firearms from criminals. I DO object to using the criminal justice process to further political agendas with exaggerations and half-truths.

So, what exactly is an arsenal? In 1994, Handgun Control Inc., which later became The Brady Campaign, was trying to get legislation passed to create Arsenal Licenses using this definition:

Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers would be required to get an “arsenal” license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Their home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

When was the last time a criminal used 20 firearms and a thousand rounds of ammunition in the commission of a crime? Is that even possible? And other than the obvious Second Amendment argument, why are these numbers so completely meaningless?

Collectors acquire firearms for the love of the craft, the history as well as for investments. Hunters, sport shooters, competitors and those who simply own firearms to defend themselves and their families know one firearm isn’t appropriate for every use. You probably own more than one pair of shoes too since even something that simple is purpose driven.

Buying ammo in bulk is no different than buying toilet paper in bulk; it’s cheaper in larger quantities. For anyone who shoots on a regular basis for training, competition, sport or recreation, buying in quantity and when it’s on sale can reduce the cost up to 50%. A single two-day training program can require over a thousand rounds. Buying in bulk also helps to insulate the firearm owner from temporary price spikes caused by political speeches about banning some kind of firearm or ammo.

Yet in the name of public safety and security, national, state and local politicians are trying to limit how many firearms or how much ammo you can have. In California where there is already a one-in-30-day limit on the purchase of handguns, anti-gun politicians are trying to extend that limit to include rifles and shotguns as well as party-to-party transactions. The result would be a strict one firearm a month acquisition limit. In New York, one ammunition-banning proposal would limit purchases to two times the capacity of your registered firearm caliber every 90 days. If you own a six-shot .38-caliber revolver you can buy 12 rounds of .38 ammunition every three months.

Are any of these laws going to prevent crime or limit it in any way when crimes are committed? Of course not. It’s as if these legislators are purposely trying to create a class of owners who are less competent to defend themselves because they can’t properly train with their firearms. Personally, I am a lot less concerned with someone who is investing their time and money in firearms, ammunition and training than with the gangbanger whose stolen six-shooter has five mismatched rounds because that’s all he has until he steals more.

So fellow patriots, be sure to hide your extravagant shoes and excessive rolls of quilted two-ply well. As soon as someone decides you don’t need those either, they’ll be laid out across your front lawn for all to view in horror and shame.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunandammobans, #gunconfiscation

Second Amendment Voter

Gun grabbers love to refer to Second Amendment supporters as single-issue voters. Portraying 2A supporters as being out of touch with the reality of the modern world and narrow minded is an effort to shame and ridicule them so they won’t be taken seriously. As you might expect, I disagree.

Let’s approach this from the context of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow ranked needs from bottom to top starting with physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The psychological theory is that the lower level needs must be met before the individual will have a strong desire for the upper level needs. In a very simple example: if you don’t have food, water and shelter, your desire for the fine arts and cultural pursuits are going to be pretty dim.

You are supposed to progress upwards as stability is gained in the lower levels but may drop back down through the list at any time due to your individual circumstances. When your lower level needs erode due to a change or loss, your primary concentration will be on fixing those foundational needs before you go back up.

So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment and voting? Think of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the foundational, base level need on Maslow’s chart. Everything that was built in this country, by this country, was born as a result of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by these documents. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, the right to bear arms – all necessary and the basis for the success of the nation we live in today.

Unfortunately, the foundation of our nation is under attack nationally and locally. The presumptive Democratic nominee for President is steadfastly opposed to the Second Amendment and will do everything in her power to gut this right or repeal it outright. In addition, an anti-Second Amendment appointee to the US Supreme Court, as has been proposed by our current President, would most certainly guarantee any future firearms rights cases would be rejected. Landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago would be in jeopardy of being ‘reinterpreted’ or repealed.

Here in California, the list of anti-Second Amendment ballot initiatives and bills grows almost daily. Each new one coming up with unique ways of stripping rights away from honest, law abiding firearms owners while doing absolutely nothing to increase safety or reduce crime.

Some contend the Second Amendment is outdated and an unnecessary relic from colonial times. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The protections expressed in these documents were the result of living under an oppressive government that no longer represented them. If that doesn’t apply to all of the rights today, nothing does.

It’s not that Second Amendment supporters aren’t concerned with international monetary policy or global environmental issues, it’s that they are focusing on an essential principle of our country first. Destroying the Second Amendment would eliminate a key part of the foundation of our nation. Just as the foundation of a single story house is critical to it’s stability, the foundation of a 100-story building is even more critical.

Patriots fought and died for our liberty. Our Founding Fathers had the courage to defy their oppressors, risking their lives and the lives of their families, to document what our new nation would be established on. The men and women of our armed services have been protecting it with their lives for nearly 240 years now.

For me, a free citizen of the United States for the sacrifices of those who have come before me, walking into a voting booth and placing my ballot for candidates who will support and protect the Second Amendment is an honor and my duty as a voter.

And when someone calls me a single-issue voter, I just reply: Damn right I am – for now.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #billofrights, #2ndamendment, #1stamendment, #2ndamendmentvoter, #singleissuevoter, #gunvote

Sticks & Stones

By now you’ve likely heard of the latest American college student fad – the “safe space”. A protected haven from the cruel outside world, it is a place where words that injure or harm cannot be spoken so feelings cannot be hurt.

What the hell has happened to our youth?!?

The epicenter of this sub-societal trend seems to be the students of the University of Missouri. The poster child for which is the now terminated Assistant Communications Professor Melissa Click who was seen assaulting a student journalist and yelling profanities at a police officer. As part of this saga, the University Police Department even encouraged students to report incidents where their feelings were hurt.

The most recent example comes from Georgia’s Emory University where 40 students reported feeling “afraid” and “in pain” due to a number of political messages written in chalk around the campus. The messages? Trump 2016.

The following quote seems to capture the essence of the situation there: “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here]. But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well. … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”

Afraid? Afraid of what??

When I was a child – many, many years ago, my parents taught me a simple saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. The lesson is ever so easy. No matter what the words, they cannot harm you.

Fast-forward to our college campuses today. What kind of a country have we become where our college students, the next generation of community, business and political leaders, need to be protected from words? These are supposedly intelligent young men and women who displayed enough intellect to be admitted to an institution of higher learning. What does this say about the colleges and universities themselves? Is setting up “safe spaces” where feelings won’t be hurt actually preparing them for… well, anything in the real world? What are the job prospects for a college graduate who – when they see or hear something that falls outside their narrow belief system – feels ‘hurt’, ‘afraid’ or ‘in pain’, and thinks protesting from a “safe space” is the preferred course of action? And when the HELL did we stop teaching kids about Sticks and Stones?

This nation’s Founding Fathers were so concerned with freedom and individual rights that the first set of Amendments to the United States Constitution is the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:

“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.”

Notice it does NOT say – unless someone’s feelings could be hurt. I have no doubt the Founding Fathers understood granting everyone freedom of speech would be problematic. Inevitably, there will be times when views opposite to one’s own will be spoken. No other person is under any obligation to listen or even pay attention to them, but the person speaking does have the absolute right to speak.

This is why I have always felt the First Amendment is simultaneously the most difficult and the most important of rights. I may not like and I could even be disturbed by what someone else has to say. But if I do not defend that person’s right to speak it, who is to say my right to speak won’t be taken away next. Rights are funny that way. If not vigorously defended by everyone, for everyone, they can easily slip away.

An update: A recent report from University of Missouri indicates they are bracing for a 25% decrease in enrollments this year resulting in significant facility and staff layoffs. At the same time all other colleges and universities in Missouri are expecting record increases in applications.

Maybe there’s a chance for a few of our youth after all.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #sticksandstones, #safespace, #1stamendment, #constitution #billofrights

European Terror Bombs = US Gun Bans

Last week we saw another pair of terrorist attacks in Europe, these two at the Brussels airport and a subway station. The weapons of choice were bombs. Almost immediately anti-gun zealots put out a call for expanded gun control in the United States. The logic escapes me.

First off, let’s separate the two non-related issues. A terrorist attack using suicide bombs in Europe vs. United States gun control.

If you’ve seen any of the images from Brussels, you know the carnage of the attacks and the tragic loss of innocent life. Desperate people with no regard for human life willing to blow themselves up along with scores of innocent men, women and children for their ‘cause’ is nothing short of disgusting.

Already airports around the world immediately increased security in hopes of preventing similar attacks. The Belgium airport attacks were in the public, non-secure departure halls, before passengers are screened to go into the secure, gate areas. No attempts were made to go into the secure areas or on to the planes; the departure halls victims were the intended targets.

The debate is now on pushing the secure area of the airport out even further to the main entrances of the buildings or even to the entrances to the airports themselves. Of course, each time the security ring is pushed out further, it creates a human queue at that point, which then becomes the next soft target. Relying on barriers and safe vs. non-safe zones only relocates the threat to the next target. It does nothing to stop it.

As we’ve seen in these attacks and others around the world, lone wolf or small teams of individuals who are willing to martyr themselves in the name of a cause are extremely difficult to stop. It can be done and is being done, but the efforts are the most effective when their own community identifies the threats before they are in play. Once out in public, a suicide bomber can simply detonate themselves to kill and maim innocents if discovered at a security stop. Even if this is not their primary target, they still kill – and more likely than not, our first responders.

So, the connection between European terror bombings and US gun bans? It goes back to the Rahm’s Rule, the product of Chicago mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, which says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Of course there is no connection but the anti-gun proponents want you to believe you will be safer if you and everyone around you gives up your firearms. After all, once all the legally owned firearms are gone, nobody will be able to hurt you.

But wait… What about the criminals who get their guns by illegal means? What about the terrorists, a.k.a. thug criminals with a cause who can get guns by illegal means? What about the guns that come into the country illegally? What about the guns that are made here illegally? And what about the other illegal weapons, the ones that are actually the weapons of choice for terrorists, the bombs that can be made by anyone with common every day items from the local hardware or auto parts store?

Disarming innocent people – people who have done nothing, committed no crimes and never will – in the name of protection from terrorists only turns them into innocent victims of terrorists. These are honest men and women who only want to protect themselves and their families and are in the best position to do so.

Preventing attacks like we’ve witnessed in Brussels, Paris, Madrid, Istanbul, Ürümqi, Tokyo, Oklahoma City, Boston, San Bernardino… is possible, but it takes time and hard work. It’s not just intercepting emails and phone calls, or de-encrypting cell phones. It means identifying those with the intent to kill early and deigning them the ability to do so. It means solving deeper national and international problems and reestablishing a moral compass in all communities that says it’s not okay to commit mass murder over ideological differences. It means leading by example.

The answer is certainly NOT disarming a population of law-abiding citizens leaving them with fewer rights and protections than the terrorists who are trying to kill them.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #terrorism, #2ndamendment, #righttobeararms

The Boss vs. The Leader

Sorry Springsteen fans, he isn’t The Boss I’m talking about. This is nonetheless a slight tangent from my usual post topics. A Facebook post I shared this past week brought to light a topic I have been thinking about for a while and I thought this would be a good opportunity to explore it further. Bear with me for a bit and I’ll bring it back around.

The boss is known by many titles: owner, manager, supervisor, crew chief, team lead and so on. Unless you work for yourself, it’s the person you work for. The leader on the other hand is the one who leads or commands others. Is there a distinction? I say there is. While a boss may be a leader, the leader doesn’t necessarily have to be the boss.

Workplace bosses may or may not be person we want to work for. They may just be the person who has been there the longest, had the right connections or was in the right place at the right time to get the job. Managing other workers or operations isn’t always the career path people want. Some get tossed into it with hopes they’ll be able to make it work. Some absolutely excel while others do not. Often times the only choice for unhappy employees is to go elsewhere.

If it sounds like I’m being hard on the boss, I am. It’s an extraordinarily difficult job and not everyone is cut out for it. It’s a lot more than policies, processes, procedures and catch phrases. I’ve always contended that managing mechanical, technical or other ‘things’ is easy, it’s the human part of the job that is difficult. Like many people, I’ve been on both sides of the equation and have seen the good, the bad and the very, very ugly.

Leaders on the other hand tend to be those we make a conscious decision to be with. In employment, we gravitate towards or stay with those we see as leaders with a vision we share. Leaders take the time to understand motivation and how it relates to individual and group success. They are fiercely protective of those they lead and are often more critical of their own abilities than of those around them.

Leadership skills, just like management skills, can be taught, trained, nurtured and grown. However just as wealth, stature, family or association does not equal success; education, training and experience don’t make one successful either. There is that something extra, that personal secret sauce an individual brings with them that determines the outcome.

Leadership is also very situational dependent. The individual contributor in one situation may be the leader in the next. Each of us has times we lead as well as times we follow. And not every situation demands a strong and dynamic leader to be successful. Standing in the produce section of your local market with a dory yelling THIS IS SPARTA!! isn’t going to get you extra discounts at checkout. There is also one of my favorite leadership quotes: “You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy talking a walk.”

So why is this pertinent? This is an election year and a lot is riding on our vote. Our next President will shape national and foreign policy as well as determine the balance of the Supreme Court for at least the next generation to come. The results could very well gut the protections we now enjoy under the Bill of Rights. Elements of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments could be dramatically reinterpreted or revoked in totality in the name of progress towards a self-serving political agenda.

Our votes will decide who sits in the President’s chair as well as many other critical matters on Election Day. We can choose the leader we want to follow, or the boss we have no choice but to follow.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #thebossvstheleader, #leadership, #2016elections, #billofrights, #bornintheusa

Violence is Violence

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Parents Against Gun Violence, Women Against Gun Violence, The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence… the list goes on and on.

Why is it that all these groups are focusing on gun violence and not just violence?

Guns do not cause violence. A gun is only a tool that can be used in a violent act, just as knives, clubs, cars, fists, feet or any other tool can be used. In fact, depending on the type of crime and location, weapons OTHER THAN firearms are more commonly used. Don’t believe me, go out to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports website and browse the data yourself.

If violent crime is more commonly committed with something other than firearms, why is the focus only on guns? Quite simply, it’s a political agenda. Guns are bad so we’re going to get rid of guns. More specifically, the anti-gun elite wants to get rid of everyone’s guns – except the ones protecting them, they need those. Those are apparently good and necessary guns. Nobody else needs them.

So, if you get rid of the guns, you’ve gotten rid of the violence, right? Wrong. Australia and the United Kingdom, the two most common examples cited as anti-gun utopias had violent crime increase after getting rid of civilian owned guns. And, despite having outlawed guns, both continue to have huge gun problems. Both countries collect as evidence more guns after crimes of violence than they care to admit.

How can this be? They have laws against private gun ownership so everyone should be safer without guns. The answer to that one is actually easy; criminals don’t obey the law.

Unfortunately for those who believe they can live in a gun-free utopia, the gun genie is out of the bottle. Criminals know how to get them through illegal means, or if they want, to build them themselves. And we’re not talking about high-tech 3D printers and CNC machines; we’re talking low-tech $10 trips to the hardware store. The information is out there, easy for anyone to use. Home built firearms in different parts of the world aren’t just zip guns anymore either. They are sophisticated, reliable, cheap and readily available.

If you’re thinking – okay, but what about mass shootings? If we get rid of guns, we won’t have those any more, right? Think again. In countries where guns are not as readily available there are still acts of mass violence, they just use other tools. Knives, explosives, chemicals and cars are just as deadly and just as effective.

But for argument sake, let’s say all the guns are gone. Now what? For a hint, take a look at the United Kingdom’s “Save a Life–Surrender Your Knife” program. They’ve even gone so far as to consult with 10 top chefs from around the country who have concluded that there is no need for a long, pointy knife. Does the “nobody needs a …“ logic sound familiar?

Here’s the United Kingdom’s advice for not becoming a victim of knife violence:

Don’t be a victim

If you feel you are in immediate danger from knife crime there are a number of steps you can take to protect yourself:

Move away from the situation towards a public place (shop, house, restaurant etc.) as quickly as possible.
Make as much noise as you can.
Instead of carrying a knife, carry a personal alarm.
Don’t fight back.

Once all the long, pointy knives are gone, what do you outlaw next? Smaller knives? Letter openers? Baseball bats? Lengths of pipe? Pointy sticks of wood? Martial arts?

Firearms do not cause violence, just as knives, clubs, cars, fists and feet don’t cause it either. It’s the person – the individual – who chooses to commit the act of violence against another. If you want to curb violence – you will never eliminate it – you must solve the societal problems that cause it in the first place.

Keep in mind that firearms and other force multipliers are used to defend innocent lives every day in every corner of this country. Banning the right to effective self-defense only turns citizens into victims or scapegoat criminals if they do choose to protect themselves and their families from violence.

Violence is violence, the tool is irrelevant.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #violenceisviolence, #selfdefense, #2ndamendment

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

There’s a popular anti-gun argument that their right to be safe from guns trumps the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They are specifically referring to the phrase: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The logic stems from a section of the United States Declaration of Independence, which reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Whether or not the Declaration of Independence should be incorporated into the body of United States case law on the same level as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as proponents of Declarationism insist, is actually irrelevant here. I’ll even stipulate this single phrase establishes the concept of natural, unalienable rights critical to all that followed for our nation.

At the same time, the concept of claiming an infringement of rights based on a subjective personal preference to not have firearms legally possessed by others around them – because not feeling safe restricts their ‘pursuit of happiness’ is just plain ridiculous. The opposite side of course is where would that right apply to someone whose personal preference is to own and use firearms for their own protection?

Beyond the academic argument, I used to think my Second Amendment rights; my right to bear arms for self-protection meant nothing to your feeling of safety. I now realize it is the exact opposite. My firearm, or more accurately firearms in the hands of private citizens who are willing to defend their lives and the lives of their families, DOES impact you. It makes YOU safer, even if you don’t like it or understand why.

A potentially armed citizen means the criminal doesn’t know if his intended victim is armed or not. Criminals don’t like armed victims because they turn out not to be victims at all. Proactively taking away legally owned firearms because it will give someone else a false sense of security actually makes them less safe. Knowing private citizens are unarmed and no threat to the criminal makes them more willing and able to attack.

If you want to blame someone for not feeling safe, start with the politicians you put into office. By making it harder for honest citizens to defend themselves, they make it easier for criminals to victimize them. Instead of helping their constituents become hard targets instead of soft ones, they refuse to prosecute those that do break the law, fail to insist on harsh sentences for the very few who are convicted, and let the offenders out of jail early or avoid incarceration all together. Remember, “common sense” “tough on criminals” “safety for all” gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally and using them against you. News flash: Criminals break the law! More laws aren’t going to change that.

Rights in the United States are difficult and we take a lot of it for granted. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech means others are going to have the same ability to speak their mind as we are, even if it’s completely opposite or offensive to us. The same goes for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with it or not, that right is as much a part of the United States way of life as free speech and is protected by the same Bill of Rights.

In the context of the Declaration of Independence, happiness was about an individual’s contribution to society rather than pursuits of self-gratification. Reimagining the definition of this phrase as means of disarming law-abiding citizens is the epitome of self-righteousness.

Perhaps it is time for all of us to be more concerned about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, for our nation – and not for ourselves.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #lifelibertyandpursuitofhappiness, #constitution, #billofrights, #2ndamendment

American Gun Owners

If you believe some politicians and gun control zealots, United States gun owners are a stereotypical group of overweight, uneducated, middle aged white men who are most likely ‘compensating for something’. Firearms owners are referred to as gun nuts, survivalists, anarchists, domestic terrorists and baby killers. In the words of our own President; “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I’ve been very fortunate to live and work in a number of areas in this great nation, and visit many others. If there’s one thing I can say with confidence; there is no such thing as a stereotypical American gun owner.

Being involved with firearms through sport, retail, as an advisor and a law enforcement officer, I have come to appreciate there are no demographics not well represented. Men and women, rich and poor, old and young, urban and rural, highly educated and school of hard knocks, every religion, every profession, every political following, every vocation, every race, – otherwise known as a cross section of America. The fastest growing customer segments in industry continue to be women and those with a Hispanic ethnicity. All very far from what some would have you believe.

In the United States, with a population of approximately 320 million, there are an estimated 350 million legally owned firearms. Of course, not every American owns a firearm. In fact, one estimate indicated the average number of firearms per owner has risen in recent years from four to eight. In 2015 we saw record firearms sales across the country and the trend is continuing at record rates into 2016.

The reasons for firearm ownership are as varied as the owners themselves. Firearms are owned for sport, hunting, protection, collecting, investing, heritage and yes, just because they can.

There is however one thing all firearm owners do have in common. They are all universally blamed for the actions of others. Very few others are lumped together in this manner. When a criminal uses a gun, it’s the fault of all gun owners. When a terrorist uses a gun, it’s the fault of all gun owners. When any owner uses a gun irresponsibly, it’s the fault of all gun owners. The answer from the ruling party is to preemptively punish all gun owners to keep them from doing something they had no intention of doing in the first place.

Here’s the thing: bad people are going to do bad things. Stupid people are going to do stupid things. No amount of legislation, oversight or government control is going to stop that. Criminals aren’t going to turn their life around and stop committing crimes because there is a new law on the books. Stupid people aren’t going to become safety gurus because of a new ordinance dictating how to store a firearm in their homes.

Each and every day in this country, the OVERWHELMING majority of those 350 million legally owned firearms are NOT used in crimes or in an irresponsible manner. They ARE used to protect, to defend, to hunt and to shoot. They ARE used to educate youth and new shooters from all walks of life on safety, marksmanship, heritage and personal defense. They ARE used in a safe and responsible manner.

Responsible firearms owners are everywhere in every community, whether you see them or not. Simply owing and using a firearm does not make any of them the next potential crazed lunatic killer, nor does it mean they will be the poster child for safety. Each individual is responsible for their own destiny, not that of the millions of other firearms owners in the country.

As honest, law abiding firearms owners, there are some things all of us can do. We can promote safety and responsibility in our community, at shooting ranges and in the home. We can lead by example of what a good, respectable firearm owner is to our children, family, friends and community. We can stand proud and be all of the things the media and gun grabbers say we are not. Most of all, we can be ourselves and still be the average American gun owner.

The Truth, From a Certain Point of View

In Star Wars VI, there is an exchange between Luke and the spirit of Obi-Wan where Luke questioned him about the death of his father. Obi-Wan explains “… So, what I told you was true… from a certain point of view.” “… you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

We see this play out in our galaxy all the time. During criminal trials, theoretically a quest for truth and justice, prosecution and defense expert witnesses carefully examine the exact same pieces of evidence and come to completely opposite conclusions. Both, according to these highly educated and respected experts in their fields, are the absolute truth.

How is this possible? Aren’t the facts the facts and the truth the truth?

A political example comes from the impeachment and acquittal of then President Bill Clinton. In a deposition he stated: “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. “ His statement was predicated on his definition of “sexual relations” to mean only vaginal intercourse. So, what he said was true, from his point of view. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say most men could not expect to survive this particular defense strategy with their partners.

The reality is there is no such thing as a single truth. The truth for each of us is an interpretation of what we bring in through our senses and run through a filter of education and experiences as well as our own beliefs and personal prejudices.

So why is this so important right now? With the passing of Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a replacement must be appointed to the bench. Justice Scalia, the longest serving justice of the court at the time of his death, was a strong and vibrant jurist noted for his originalism interpretation of the Constitution. He was the author of many important decisions, including the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, a critical Second Amendment ruling.

If the truth was always the truth, any qualified jurist could be appointed to the Supreme Court. The decisions made by a Democrat or Republican appointed Justice would be the same. All decisions would be the simple, inescapable truth based on the facts and the law, and nothing but the facts and the law.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices with views similar to their own who are likely to rule in a manner consistent with their certain point of view. With these lifetime appointments, Presidents are influencing the outcome of cases brought before the nation’s highest court for decades.

Our current President has already shown a shocking disrespect for the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. He now has the opportunity to replace a conservative jurist with an originalist approach with one more in line with his views. Names reportedly on the President’s initial shortlist include those who have a well-documented history of seeking to gut the protections of the Bill of Rights in pursuit of a politically motived agenda.

While I abhor partisan political games regardless of the party involved in them, I shudder to think of the long term implications to American’s rights should our current President appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during his final months in office.

This is of course a game and all games must come to an end. And of course, not all games are won. What we hope for is the individual elected as our 45^th President will respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, as well as the citizens of the nation it protects. Given the infighting from all our potential nominees, this is far from a sure thing.

Justice Scalia’s death raises the stakes for this year’s Presidential election significantly. Not only for the candidates running for office, but for our current Senators who must play the game very carefully until the general election. It also falls upon us – the voters – to actively participate now and choose wisely at the polls in November.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #truth, #elections, #politics, #2ndAmendment, #vote #SCOTUS #Scalia