Firearms Friday: I Am The 90%

It is interesting to think about the changes in my life especially over the past year. This is especially true when considering the places where my wife and I have lived in the past compared to the community in which we live now. Well beyond the considerations of considerably reduced congestion and the open space which we now enjoy, there is a different reality which we are now a part of which I have welcomed opening into our life.

It comes down to simple percentages… for the most part, criminals know that in the suburbs of Philadelphia 90% of the houses will not have a firearm inside. This has been the reality that we lived with for many years. However, for the most part, the opposite is true where we live now. Criminals know that there is about a 90% chance that there will be a firearm in the house. When they reach this realization they tend to head toward the more populated areas around the city. This isn’t to say that we live in rural utopia but it does lend some peace of mind… I feel safer knowing that this is our reality.  

The other difference was concisely surmised a few months ago when I had the pleasure of speaking with many of our new neighbors at a party. When the conversation turned to one of those not in attendance shooting their rifle in the back yard the response was a little different than what I have heard on the main line in the past but one that I completely agree with… well, it is there property and as long as they a shooting in a safe direction I have no problem with it. This is exactly the reaction that we should hear everywhere but, for me, it took loving to a different county before I heard those words coming from someone else.

Bear in mind that these observations are from a county that (tri county area actually) that still has a majority of registered voters aligned with the Democrats while, at the same time, with an active voter base that heavily favors Republicans. Of course, the subject at hand is about individual rights which should be supported by all people regardless of party affiliation. It is rather unfortunate that there are so few pockets of the population where rights still have value and personal responsibility is expected such as where we live now.

In this interesting dichotomy I am both part of the minority and a part of a significant majority. It is this interplay between affiliation and beliefs that will make politics where I live particularly interesting this year and, while I am fairly certain as to what the results will be, I am curious to see how the percentages settle. Something else that I have to get used to… people actually voting based on the candidate rather than party affiliation. Hopefully the 90% come through!

An Off Day Not A Day Off

Things seemed to be a little off this morning. After getting a late start to the day due to an early morning meeting and before heading off to work, I meandered over to our local polling location to submit my annual votes. It is an off year so by the time I got there I was only number 42 for the day. What caught me off guard a bit, besides the parking situation at the church, was the fact that this was the first time that I had to fill out a paper ballot in my life. Sitting in the partitioned booth, it felt like I was taking the SATs again.

That experience has pretty much summed up this whole election cycle so far this year. Things are getting done and the positions are being stated but the format seems a little different and we are having to work a little bit more to find what we are looking for. After scanning the entire paper, front and back, there wasn’t anything or anyone that would change my mind which left me only having to fill in one circle in order to complete my ballot.

Honestly, at this point, I don’t expect things to be much different next year. While I keep looking at the various positions on both primaries, it is pretty clear where my vote will be cast. Well, to a certain extent anyway. As was clear in the debates last week, it is still a crowded field with more viable candidates than I can recall ever taking the stage at one time. There are a few that I would like to see continue, others I would prefer drop out, and a couple that have really piqued my interest. At least that is my perspective on the Republican side… there really isn’t anyone that I could even come close to even feigning support for on the other ticket.

While this may be an off year, the next election is one that will make a huge difference in this country… hopefully for the better. Now that this day is coming to an end, we should really see the campaigns taken to another level over the next couple of months. And as the field thins, we should get a much better sense of who is the right person for the job, who can lead this country, and who truly has our best interests in mind. So buckle up and get ready for the ride.

Firearms Friday: Taking Over The NRA?

It really isn’t a surprise, especially with the campaigns in high gear, that following another incident of evil there are numerous politicians taking aim at gun owners and the NRA. This has been a potent topic for years and was particularly prominent during the first Democratic debate this week with Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuing to be a vocal proponent of gun control. Oddly enough, this was in direct contrast with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who has a long record of voting against such legislation. Of course, that kind of stance never lasts with a socialist leader so I don’t give much credence to his past performance. Basically it doesn’t matter who ends up being the nominee for the Communist party, the rights of ALL law abiding citizens will be a particular point of contention between the parties.

While all of this back and forth was happening on the national debate stage, there were also a few headlines being grabbed by a New York State Senator, Liz Kreuger, who is advocating her fellow rights abolitionists to join the NRA and force a change in stance on the issue of gun control from the inside. As was reported by the New York Daily News, “Krueger first raised the issue at a roundtable on gun violence issues hosted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) after someone suggested meeting with the NRA to try to find common ground on a gun control law, the New York Observer reported.” Yes, this is how far and how demented their ideas have become.

First of all, as was noted in the same article, Thomas King, president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA board member, “the NRA has more than five million members and scoffed at the suggestion there are enough "anti-gunners" to make an impact on the organization.” This is true, and those of us who are proud members would not stand for that kind of drastic “change” in policy… that is not why we donate our hard earned money. We choose to support and strengthen our rights be fighting those who wish to continue limiting our freedom.

Secondly, keep in mind that the same people who support this kind of radical action are the ones that would be filing suit if every Republican in this country were to register as a Democrat in order to change the party and support candidates that would oppose those policies that they currently hold so close to their empty hearts. Either action should be seen simply as perpetuating a fraud against those who support the basic principles of the organization. And what they are underestimating is that by proposing such actions they are actually galvanizing support for the NRA by the current membership (especially those of us who are life members), including me, which is why I have decided to join the NRA Golden Eagles. 

Firearms Friday: Definitions

Today there was an article in the Washington Post stating in the title that “There have been 204 mass shootings — and 204 days — in 2015 so far”. What the headline doesn’t immediately tell the reader is that the definition has been changed in order to satisfy the author’s agenda. Five paragraphs deep into the article the means of miscalculation is finally revealed:

“The Mass Shooting Tracker is different from other shooting databases in that it uses a broader definition of mass shooting. "The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event," the site's creators explain. "It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event."”

Buried even further in the fantastical story was this little gem: “There have been 10 in Ohio, 14 in California and 16 in New York.” Did you catch that? While the author may have glossed over those ‘statistics’ the reality remains… 30 ‘mass shootings’ occurring in the two states with the strictest gun laws. Put another way, excessive regulation had no impact as nearly 15% of these tragedies occurred in these liberal strongholds.

Of course, this is nothing new. Redefining terms is something that the left takes pride in… quite literally recently. From redefining marriage to media attempts to reclassify all semi-automatic rifles under a rather limited, by definition, term of assault weapons. It is because of this pattern that I wasn’t surprised to read such blather from an uniformed writer (sorry, can’t use journalist for this one).

And don’t think about doing the same thing if your views are anything but liberal. That would be racist, radical, homophobic, illegal, or just downright silly. Don’t try to reinforce current definitions either because that can sometimes be worse… you might be the devil if you do that. Unless you want to be labeled, you just have to sit back, take it, and watch as the nonsense continues to destroy the country.

Don’t watch a drunk driver careening down the highway hitting car after car and call it attempted mass manslaughter. Don’t read the news about knife wielding assailants and call it a mass stabbing. Don’t listen to the excuses on the radio and call abortion doctors mass murderers. You would be skewing the facts and that is just wrong… and somehow you would be a racist too.

And, G-d forbid, don’t speak up for the rights of all law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Don’t voice your support for the military and law enforcement. Don’t call out those who refuse to accept facts or responsibility for their own actions. You will certainly be deemed a radical homophobic racist or something else like that. But, you know what, that is fine with me. I know it’s not true. Just don’t call me a liberal democrat.

Which One Is The “Old White Men’s Club”?

Here is a screen shot of the potential GOP candidates for 2016
(not all have announced or formed committees).

It is interesting to read the news with the media still labeling the Republican Party as the “old white men’s club” rather than using descriptors that are based on principles. While I will discuss the latter of the two dilemmas later in the post, let’s first take a look at the slander that is still being bandied about. Here is the current list of those who are running for President in 2016 (this includes those who have announced and those who have formed exploratory committees):

Democrats:

Former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee: White, Male, 62

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: White, Female, 67

US Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders: White, Male, 73

Former US Senator from Virginia Jim Webb: White, Male, 69

Summary: 4 candidates; 3 men, 1 woman; all white; average age of 67.75.

Republicans:

Dr. Ben Carson: Black, Male, 63

US Senator from Texas Ted Cruz: Hispanic, Male, 44

Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson: White, Male, 60

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina: White, Female, 60

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: White, Male, 59

US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul: White, Male, 52

US Senator from Florida Marco Rubio: Hispanic, Male, 43

Summary: 7 candidates; 6 men, 1 woman; 4 white, 2 Hispanic, 1 black; average age of 54.43.

While there is no denying that politics on both sides are still dominated by men, the other characteristics of the candidates paint a much different picture than those on MSNBC would have you believe. Diversity is nearly nonexistent among the Democrats while nearly half of the Republican candidates are ‘minorities’. Additionally, the average age of the Republican candidates is over 13 years younger than those of their counterparts on the Democratic side. So, tell me again, which one is the “old white men’s club”?

However, let’s step back and look beyond the demographics of the candidates. Would you rather support a party that prides itself on limiting the rights of the people to support and defend themselves or would you rather vote for someone who will maintain the rights of every citizen of this country to be self-sufficient, hardworking, and accountable for their own actions? Would you rather have the government make choices for you or would you prefer to have the freedom to choose what is best for yourself and your family? Would you rather have the power reside in the individual states and the people therein or in a large, centralized, government dictating policies and handing down executive orders?

Consider your responses to those questions carefully. I have had to answer those questions for myself which is why I continue to support the party of the people, the party which continues to fight to preserve my rights, the Republican Party. This is also why, when considering the changes that need to be pursued and the decisions that have to be made moving forward, that I am supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016 (still up in the air as to running mate but I am currently leaning toward Marco Rubio). I have made my decision, who are you going to support?

Politics Coloring Perception

In case you are wondering, this little 'rainbow gun' is the Sig Sauer P238.

This past weekend my wife and I were able to spend some time with her sister and her wife. It was actually the first time that I had ever spent time with the two of them and, not surprisingly, we had a few moments of sharing thoughts. While many will see the two completely different lifestyles and the polar party affiliations there weren’t any times of severe disagreement. While this may be surprising to some it really shouldn’t be if you take into consideration the fact that we are all human with different perspectives but the same desires.

In fact, there was one moment in particular which seemed to make the two of them step back for a second. My sister-in-law made a comment which was something to the effect of ‘we would more back but we would have to worry about being accepted as a married couple.’ Of course, I am paraphrasing but the general sentiment is pretty clear.

What had the two of them a bit speechless was when I told them that, frankly, I could care less. I am not going to tell you what you can or can’t do, who you can marry, etc. At the same time, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. As has been a common phrase that I have read and heard over and over (I am certain that many of you are reading this for the first time)… you don’t want me in your bedroom and I don’t want you in my gun room. It is that simple. My political beliefs are anchored in personal freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence. Who am I to tell you who you can be with, who you can love?

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the vast majority of people I know with the same affiliation with the Republican Party feel the same way. In fact, I personally know more Democrats opposed to such unions. With that said, we are not going to lobby for your ability to marry but we will not stand in your way either. It is this fact that may have made them think the most (of course, I am basing this on observation as they did not disclose their thought process to me).

However, this whole situation just goes to show that too many of us fail to communicate. We make assumptions of each other based on politics without ever discussing the issues. Because of this, we lose sight of the things that we have in common and interests that we share (firearms in this particular instance). Of course, there will be differences but when you think about it as individuals we have differences with everyone it is just a matter of degrees. Most things that really get people going, that are the basis of personal passion, don’t fall along political lines. Those differences lie within the individual.

Is That A Cliff I See?

The quote for this week is something a little different (would you expect anything else on this blog?). I am sure that many of you have already seen this video but I had to post it here anyway as there is a disturbing amount of truth in the humor. Namely, the blind following that seems to be going on. I think Chicago's Second City Network did a magnificent job in distilling the current situation that I, and I am sure many of you, have been witnessing.

I have written on the subject of Syria recently and it is clear that I don’t side with the President on this issue. However, there are many that do and that is their right to do so. But, before you support a position, give it some thought rather than blindly following someone. Let your voice be heard and make up your own darn mind.

When it comes to decisions like this, think about the reasons not to go to war first before you consider the reasons for the action. If you still believe that it is in our best interests to commit to this conflict then at least you thought it through and while I may not agree with your conclusions I can at least respect the fact that you gave it some serious thought. Even in making their rather humorous point you can tell there is a considerable amount of thought behind the sketch.

Humor aside, this is a sad state when so many will follow blindly. I know I have my own point of view and it happens to fall on the conservative side most of the time but it has never been blind trust which is why there are some views where I completely disagree. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides but never throw my full support without giving some dedicated thought to the topic at hand.

The current epidemic of blind devotion to politicians has to stop. And I make that statement with both parties in mind. This also applies to the support and opposition of legislation. Just because the party you affiliate yourself with opposes some measure doesn’t mean you have to and just because your party supports a particular bill doesn’t mean you have to either. The same rules apply to the party you don’t affiliate yourself with.

In the end, you may find yourself supporting everything that one party does, I seriously doubt it, but at least give those positions some thought first. And even after you have formed an opinion and taken a position, don’t be afraid to reevaluate if you come across new information. As an example, in my Syria post I said that I do not support military action with the evidence at hand but if additional information is brought to light I will reconsider my position.

It’s not flip flopping. It’s being an informed member of society. So take the time and think about what you believe and what is really going on. Only then can you make an educated decision. Don’t let yourself be fodder for the comedy community.  

I Think I Found The Elephants In The Room

Photo by Sean M. Teaford

As soon as I walked into the Radnor Hotel and checked in at the desk to get my name tag I was immediately welcomed not simply as a member but as a friend. I had been looking forward to last night’s Commonwealth Club event for months as it was not only a chance to meet Governor Corbett but also to catch up with my fellow members that I only have the opportunity to see every once in a while. It is indeed a great group of people with whom I share many common interests and points of view. I was also struck with a great sense of irony that I was attending this event the week after visiting Gettysburg because, as you may recall, this is the Party of Lincoln.

For many, those viewpoints are not at all agreeable but, for me, they are in sync with my point of view both personally and politically. You see, these events are not about trying to find the elephant in the room because we are a room full of elephants. In case that wasn’t clear enough let me put it simply, this was a meeting of contributors to the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. While the financial contributions vary greatly among the attendees we are all proud supporters of our party.

As someone who spent many years affiliated with the Democratic Party, I can say from personal experience that, contrary to coverage that you may read in the media, this is the party of change. I have had greater accessibility, more level headed discussions, and seen more diversity in local candidates in this party than I did in my previous youthful years. This is the change that I had always been looking for.

In my experience, you can go to just about any political event around, regardless of party, and hear someone speak about their positions I have experienced a greater prevalence of one on one discussion in this party as I did with Governor Corbett last night. Everyone’s voice was heard regardless of positions held or the kind and level of support they have dedicated to the party. We may differ in some of our views, in what we think are high priorities and what are not, and sometimes what may be the best solution to a problem but, in the end, we are all have an equal voice in our party.   

Photo by Richard M. Trivane

While I will not discuss specifics on this blog as I do not speak for the Governor, the Commonwealth Club, or the Republican Party in general and I do not pretend to do so I will say that a large variety of topics were covered including (but not limited to) education (both students and teachers), pension reform, economic issues, natural gas, the job market, the state budget, and taxes. Finally, I will leave you with this final aspect about the event last night in that while numerous issues and topics were discussed and certain stances on current events were mentioned at no point was any person or politician attacked. Even in a room full of supporters both of the party and of the Governor, and during a time when he will soon begin his re-election campaign, no negative rhetoric was heard coming from the Governor.

This is the party of unity and change not of partisan segregation and recycled polities. This is the party of the future not of immediate gratification. This is the party of discussion not of accusation. This is the party of common sense and reasonable solutions not of over accommodation and knee jerk reactions. This is not the ‘grand old party’, this is my party.