Firearms Friday: A Simple Question

As I mentioned previously, this past weekend we took a family vacation up to New York to attend a family reunion. Rather than stay anywhere near the city, we decided to stay a little further out and we found the perfect place in The Thayer Hotel. Now, because the hotel is on the West Point grounds, there is a security checkpoint that you need to pass through in order to get back to your hotel room. While this may put off some people I found it rather reassuring and enjoyed the quick conversations with the guards as we presented them with our identification.

One such conversation was rather amusing when we returned to the hotel a little later than we were expecting on Friday evening. While I had my identification in hand, my wife had left hers in the back of the car. When we stopped at the gate she got out and proceeded to the back of the vehicle. While she was opening the door and reaching into her bag, the guard turned and asked me “do you have any weapons or firearms in the vehicle?”

Okay, so that is not the amusing part. The look of surprise that he gave me when I responded is what gave me a little chuckle afterward. It went something like this, “Sir, while I have a concealed carry permit in my home sate I am a long way from Pennsylvania. While I don’t agree with many of the laws and policies in place in this country in general and this state in particular, I would be an idiot to try and carry any sort of firearm in this state and an absolute fricking moron to try and carry any weapon onto a military base.”

Right or wrong, that is how I responded… and honest and straightforward response. The look he gave me was the amusing part both for his appreciation for my position and slight shock that I actually said it but what he said reminded me of the sad cluelessness that has become pervasive in this country… “You would be surprised.” A response to so many different situations.

By the time our banter concluded my wife had retrieved her identification and we were being waved to proceed to the hotel. With a quick “thank you” we were on our way but clearly that moment has stuck in my mind. In the end, know where you are going and what the laws, regulations, and restrictions are in that place and at that establishment. It keeps you legal and it may even provide you with an amusing moment of honesty.   

Firearms Friday: For Whom Are You Really Voting?

This is how we started the year... how will it look in four years? 

Well, the campaigns are now in full swing and it seems like every other commercial is sponsored by the Clinton campaign (or some associated group). There are also the various campaign spots from local politicians filling the screen as well but that is another topic for another day. Back to the national campaigns… so far I haven’t seen much regarding the qualifications of Hillary Clinton being ‘promoted’ in these advertisements rather they have been going out of their way to attack Donald Trump and some of his statements which have been clearly taken out of context.

Heck, even my wife has been disturbed by this trend. But this shouldn’t really be a surprised for those of us who have put some thought into the presidential race as there are no ‘qualifications’ or ‘accomplishments’ to be found in her record that would, in any way, support her candidacy. After all, an ad buy promoting Obamacare, Benghazi, and private servers wouldn’t really be part of a winning strategy. It is actually rather pathetic the lack of concise information present to support her rather than simply opposing Trump.

However, I digress. What I really want to bring to the fore is what is of utmost importance in this election cycle. It isn’t Obamacare or the economy. It isn’t race relations or military operations. It isn’t international relations or the national debt. While these are all important in their own right they are not of primary concern this time around. In fact, it really isn’t about who is occupying the White House. It’s about the Supreme Court not the Presidency!

In addition to the seat left vacant upon Antonin Scalia’s death this past February, there are likely to be three other appointments which need to be made by the next president. After all, there are currently three associate justices who are 78, 80, and 83 years old respectively. For those of you interested, below is a list of the current court with ages and by which president they were appointed:

John Roberts (Chief Justice), 61, George W. Bush

Anthony Kennedy, 80, Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas, 68, George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginzburg, 83, Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer, 78, Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito Jr, 66, George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor, 62, Barak Obama

Elena Kagan, 56, Barak Obama

The Supreme Court is the body that will determine the direction of this nation not the individual in the oval office. Whomever wins this election and takes office in January will determine the course of this country for the next generation not the next four or eight years. Personally, and I know I am not alone in this thinking, I would prefer a conservative court that upholds our rights (especially the second amendment), limits the power held by those in Washington, and, most importantly, support and defends the Constitution. It is scary to think about the possibility of a court where five of the justices where appointed by a Clinton and two more where appointed by Obama. That is a future that none of us can afford.  

Firearms Friday: An Olympic Record

History was made today as Kim Rhode received a bronze medal for her extraordinary efforts which was her sixth consecutive summer Olympics in which she has stood on the podium dating back to the Atlanta games in 1996. She is the first athlete, man or woman, in any sport, to do so at the summer games. She is one of the athletes that you can count on to add to the United States’ total every four years. Unfortunately, there is little fanfare for her accomplishment as there is a tremendous stigma associated with her chosen specialty which she has mastered… skeet.

Rhode, who lives in California, has always been a firm proponent of second amendment rights and, following her recent victory, let her thoughts be known regarding the recently proposed legislation in her home state:

“I shoot 500 to 1,000 rounds a day, so having to do a background check every time I purchase ammo, or every time I want to bring ammo in or out of a competition or a match, those are very challenging for me,” said Rhode. “Also, I’ve had guns in my family for generations that have been passed down, and now I’m going to register them as assault weapons. And they will not be passed on to my son, or to me from my father. It definitely does effect me and give me a reason to speak out more.”

This is why the media doesn’t mention her dominance at the Olympic games and even downplays her significant accomplishment as was the case on the NBC Olympics homepage where the ‘reporter’ states: “Many would argue that a shooter doing this is far less impressive than, say, a gymnast or a swimmer. The act of shooting requires fewer physical attributes, extending Olympic lifespans...” Other outlets chose to focus on mass shootings and, as noted by Bloomberg News, “Olympics Sponsors Want Nothing to Do With Team USA Shooters”. Of course, this is why you won’t see this particular group of Olympians in any of the advertising spots flooding the television stations every night.

It truly is a sad state of affairs when our country refuses to support our Olympians especially those as distinguished and decorated at Rhode. It is sad but it is not surprising given the segregationist stance that the media has taken in recent years… after all we now have Olympians and “those other Olympians”. But, for me, I would like to convey my congratulations to Kim Rhode and to all of the other members of USA Shooting Team both for their performances and for representing themselves, our country, and our sport the way and Olympian should represent the best of us.

Let The Games Begin

Every couple of years there is something a little different that we usually watch on the television at the end of the day… the Olympics. While I usually prefer the winter games, the summer event has also had plenty to offer in recent years with some dominant performances by many United States athletes. Of course, there are also many other countries well represented, especially this year, that are providing some great competitions and surprising finishes.

However, before the games get underway, the opening ceremonies usually set the tone for the two week marathon. The last summer games provided us with an evening of entertainment from London that, when all was said and done, it let many with the feeling of how is Rio going to top this in 2016? Well, simply put, they didn’t. The opening ceremonies left most of us wanting and, for me, cause the channel to be changed in search of something that would at least provide some entertainment. Thankfully it was only one night.

Per the usual order of things, gymnastics and swimming were the highlighted categories for the prime time lineup to start the games. These are also the two concentrations that pique my wife’s interest so there really wasn’t a question as to whether or not we would be watching them. As the qualifiers and medal rounds continued, the dominance by the United States was unexpected even by their own lofty standards and watching Michael Phelps continue to add to his medal count is something that many of us, whether you like him or not, have to stand back and admire.

In both disciplines, there were both close competitions and moments of sheer domination. This is what I consider to be the perfect mix that you want to see at the Olympics. Congratulations to the teams and the individuals from all countries that put everything into their performances. Because of them, I am actually looking forward to the rest of the competitions.

Of course, there have also been a few moments of unpleasantness behind the scenes as well. Prior to the opening ceremonies, countries boarded on their assigned buses to the stadium in preparation for the celebration. All of the teams were able to follow these instructions with the exception of Israel who was prevented from boarding their assigned bus by the Lebanese delegation. Of course, with Yarden Gerbi winning the bronze medal in the women’s 63kg weight class in Judo, Israel can say that they have an Olympic Champion at the Rio games while Lebanon is still trying to find their way to the podium... maybe their bus got lost.

Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

DNC Aftermath

Heading into this past week I was curious as to how the “celebration of leftist ideals” was going to progress in the wake of the WikiLeaks hack and the transition of the disgraced DNC chair from her position with the party to an integral part of the Clinton campaign. It was interesting to say the least watching the Democratic National Convention unfold this past week as speaker after speaker leveled their attacks on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. From behind the wall requiring Photo ID to get in the speakers took the stage in rapid succession: Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden, President Barak “You Didn’t Build This” Obama, First Lady Michelle “I Live In A Slave House” Obama, President Bill “I Hope To Open A First Gentleman’s Club” Clinton, Bernie “Burning and Itching” Sanders, Tim “I Have No Business Here” Kaine, and many other questionable speakers.

One of those brought to the stage was the father, with his repressed wife standing beside him, of a soldier who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, Khizr Khan. Given the treatment that the military and law enforcement has received during the event, the level of hypocrisy accentuated by those six minutes is rather astounding. While I respect and humbly appreciate his son’s sacrifice I cannot say the same about his punditry. Add to this questionable selection of a presenter with the fact that the stage at one point was filled with the mothers of those “killed by the police” and it truly demonstrates the fact that this was more of a circus rather than a convention.

However, there were a few things that truly disturbed me about this past week. The first was the undenounced burning of the Israeli flag outside of the convention. The second was the simple fact that there was not an American flag to be found during the DNC until this exact fact was pointed out publicly in the media. But, the most distressing aspect of this whole charade was the blind sheep like accolades that kept filling social media. Seems as though there are too many blinded by gender and the eerily robotic call to “Join Us!”

And this brings me to the marquee speech of the event which really had me questioning the mentality of the American people who have proclaimed their rabid devotion to Hillary Clinton. Following her outline of countless programs for which there is no clear plan to pay for the government overreach, she insisted on promoting the idea of group think. Included in her “I alone can fix it” diatribe, she emphasized over and over the Utopian ideal that no one can do basically anything alone. Specifically, she said:

“20 years ago I wrote a book called “It Takes a Village.” A lot of people looked at the title and asked, what the heck do you mean by that?

“This is what I mean.

“None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.

“America needs every one of us to lend our energy, our talents, our ambition to making our nation better and stronger.”

And that is one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, that we face in this country. We have forgotten how to be self-reliant. Too often people are turning to others to do the heavy lifting and, in some cases, take the blame. This mentality can be seen in the increased reliance that many have on government funds and also on the other side in assigning blame to a group of people rather than an individual. We must remember that individual rights still mean something in this country and we can’t simply follow the Pied Piper as she screeches from the stage “Join Us!”

I Got A Response From @Montel_Williams

Every once in a while I get a little surprise on social media as much of the content I produce is simply caste into the vacuum to never be heard from again. Bear in mind that this is primarily due to my lack of correspondence through these sites. I really need to work on that. But, sometimes, someone catches one of my posts and comments, likes, retweets, or responds to what I wrote. Sometimes they agree and other times there is not a grain of agreement to be found.

The truly surprising part is when I recognize the name with these likes, shares, and responses. Most of the time these come from friends or family while other times they come from people whom I have never met before like back in June when Montel Williams responded to my post following the massacre in Orlando. The response was simple but addressed the core of what I was addressing in my blog. Frankly, I was just surprised that he took the time to respond which does say a lot about how he chooses to engage with people as a whole.

Bear in mind that I fervently disagree with many of the comments and confrontations that can be found when browsing through his account but he takes the time to listen and respond. Additionally, he takes the time to share his opinions and I have to respect someone who is willing to be vocal about what they believe whether or not I agree with them. However, there are many people with whom I disagree, many friends and family in fact, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect their opinion. Although some opinions are so far out there that I can’t respect them. But there are also times when we find a common ground like I did with Mr. Williams in our brief exchange over Twitter.

And this is the main point that I want to drive home with this post. There have been numerous people that have tested my patience and temperament through various social media sites in recent years and especially in recent weeks. And, honestly, I am sure that I have done the same through many of the things that I have posted. However, I have also invited many people to have a dialogue knowing full well that we will probably never come to an agreement on many topics. I don’t unfriend or unfollow people when I disagree with them and I don’t leave visceral comments to posts. I try to engage with them outside of the public forum.

We have to remember that we all possess different views colored by a diverse collection of life experiences. Many times there will not be any common ground to be found but, every once in a while, we find something in common… sometimes it is how similar events in our lives have taken us in drastically different directions while other times it is the surprise when we find ourselves agreeing on a topic despite our differences. This is a time for discussion not divisiveness but also a time when we cannot be afraid to share our views and opinions.

So, when you read much of what I write remember that I am open to discussing just about anything. You may not like what I have to say and I may not like what you have to say but that doesn’t mean that we can’t talk and it doesn’t mean that we will disagree on everything (although that is a possibility). How does that sound Mr. Williams?

RNC Recap

Well, it certainly was an interesting week in Cleveland as the Republican National Convention officially make Donald Trump the party candidate for President. It was also a week that introduced many voters to the other half of the ticket as Governor Mike Pence took the stage for his first significant speech since being named as a Vice Presidential candidate on July 15^th. And, of course, there was the speech given by Senator Ted Cruz who spoke for many of us when we said to “vote your conscious” in November. Simply put, Trump was never my first, second, or third choice (which I have made clear over the past year on this blog) but he is the party nominee and I will be voting for him. After all, for all of his flaws, he is the best option on the table.

What was rather surprising was the lack of protesting surrounding the event and the whispers that Bernie Sanders supporters were saving their energy for next week in Philadelphia. Not surprisingly is the fact that Trump received a rather significant bump following the pomp and circumstance from the previous week. It will be interesting to see if the Democratic inmates in the Philadelphia asylum will have the same impact on the polls. However, given the WikiLeaks announcement yesterday, that is becoming less likely and will probably result in some significant changes in the race bating party.

One moment that stood out for me was the emotional speech given by Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack in Libya, who stated “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son — personally." Some have criticized the organizers for allowing such an “emotional attack not rooted in fact” but, honestly, what do you think the Democrats have been doing every time there has been a shooting in this country? The other “controversial” speech was that of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s speech from the DNC in 2008. The amount of media coverage on this was astounding especially when you consider the fact that the questionable section is generic political filler for any candidate and by no means a verbatim copy. If that is what you are looking for you must turn to the President himself during his 2007-08 campaign.

For all the ups and downs that are usually associated with political events of this sort, it was interesting overall to see the mix this time around of ardent supporters, those who are just going along for the ride, and others whom you could tell were really hoping to see someone else on stage accepting the nomination. Honestly, it didn’t seem like the rallying moment happened until late on Friday evening when the WikiLeaks announcement was made regarding DNC emails. Could have been better, could have been worse, but, in the end, I’ll take it. Now all we have to do is wait, vote, and hope that some common sense is realized in this country come November.

Firearms Friday: Fulfilling A Request

Following my previous Firearms Friday post, I received a request from a friend on Facebook. This is someone who has demonstrated time and again an even temperament regarding a variety of topics whether or not they agree with the stance that I am taking. It is because of this thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss various issues that I am honoring their request for the Firearms Friday post this week. Their request was as follows:

“I fully accept your premise that mental health is significantly lacking, however I don't believe focusing solely on mental health with solve the problem of gun violence. (Some people really are just are evil.) I would be happy to support legislation that limits evil people's ability to do harm with fire arms, while still allowing gun owners to own fire arms. As a non gun expert I can only guess. I've been thinking in terms of limits on clip sizes, the rate at which bullets could be fired, or the maximum force behind the bullets. My requested topic is this: As a gun expert, how would you make firearms safer so that if they were to fall into the wrong hands they would do less damage?”

They later added the following:

“Fundamentally all I care about is a reduction in gun violence. Propose something I can get behind and I'll happily advocate for that when I call my representatives, otherwise I'm forced to stick to the generic "do something!" plea… We may not always agree, but I appreciate the effort. Our end goals are the same. The best polices come from listening to people on all sides of the aisle.”

Again, they were reasonable and respectful in their approach so my response was rather simple… ask and you shall receive. Of course, I made sure to point out that there it is likely that they will not agree with my response but I can't expect everyone to agree with me. In the end, we all have our own views. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. So, here is my response…

First of all, it is very important to note that I am by no means a firearms expert. This is an enjoyable hobby and a means to defend myself and my family. I enjoy and respect this right. I may have more knowledge in this field than others but I am by no means an expert. 

Second, the concept of "making guns safer" is simply an impossibility. Capacity is a moot point when you watch people dedicated to the sport conduct speed reloads. The same can be said regarding rate of fire when you consider the capabilities of the British Army conducting "Mad Minute" drills during World War I. Of course it should be noted that while the media and politicians may use the term "automatic weapon" we are really talking about semiautomatic firearms that fire one round per pull of the trigger. Finally, regarding lethality of the projectile, I wouldn't even consider this as plausible because while I can understand the perspective of the questioner I also have to consider the fact that, if put in a situation to defend myself and/or my family, I don't want to question the lethality of the rounds I am using... I just want to eliminate the threat. 

That being said, I will do my best to address the larger subject at hand. 

The sad fact of the matter is that there is no way to stop all violence committed with firearms. Bad and/or evil people will always find a way to get them and thinking just because something is illegal that criminals will stop using them is lunacy. Evil people will find a way to commit evil acts and the most recent Terrorist attack in France is a prime example of that fact. This is the world in which we live, like it or not.

As I previously mentioned, mental health is the primary means of further decreasing the number of crimes committed with firearms in this country. I specifically used the term “further decreasing” as PEW research shows the steady decline since the early 1990’s. Unfortunately, the media coverage of “gun violence” has not only distorted public opinion but also has offered a tremendous incentive to those looking to commit such a heinous crime… fame. What further sickens me is the fact that the individual who committed this act, the one responsible for the death(s), is seen more as an accomplice rather than the perpetrator… the ones “found guilty” are gun owners in general. As I have said before:

“…The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”” 

What I am getting at is that there needs to be a drastic shift in the mentality of the American people. We can’t glorify violence on a daily basis and we can’t assign blame to those who had nothing to do with the crime. We have to return to a society that accepts individual responsibility and promotes self-reliance. Too often, people are blaming others for crimes, addiction, health issues, financial situations, living conditions, and limited employment opportunities. We need to take responsibility for our own lives.

Education is fundamental to a healthy and thriving society but the idea that institutionalized settings are the only place that offer this is a misconception that is continuously perpetuated in every political circle. In this instance, on this topic, people need to be familiar with firearms and have at least a basic understanding. This used to be part of growing up and it was slowly strangled from the consciousness of the schools. We need to teach children and adults not just about how a firearm operates but also, and more importantly, proper gun safety. Firearms should be respected not something that should be feared or, even worse, painted as an innocuous piece of video game memorabilia.

These things would take time but, per the request above, what can be done NOW? My stance is rather simple in this regard. What we need to do is enforce the volumes of laws that are already on the books before any other measures should even be considered. Besides, overzealous kneejerk local laws work so well, right? Additionally, we need to spend the money allocated, through legislation, to improve the NICS system. By the way, it was signed into law by President Bush. Here is an overview that I previously wrote:

“Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.”

This is something that really bothers me as it seems as though the intentional “spenddown” is being leveraged to paint a completely different story about the system and the way it should be working. Again, even the positive actions taken are spun to accommodate a political objective. After all, if you improve the system you can’t blame it and try to pass additional legislation.

The final “recommendation” I would make is that we need to increase the penalties associated with crimes (violent or nonviolent) with a firearm. I’m talking decades not simply years. Basically, instead of the mandatory minimums for drugs, why don’t we change things up and have mandatory minimums for these crimes. This would also apply to those using something (i.e. a toy) to misconceive people in thinking they had a firearm. Those found guilty of straw purchasing (including members of the media) should be brought up on criminal charges. Those found in possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated need to be penalized as well.

Lastly, we need to eliminate gun free zones. They have been proven time and again to be ineffectual. In fact, rather than offering real protection they have presented wicked people with targets of opportunity. In addition to the multitudes of accounts, police reports, and stories about firearms being used to stop crime even the CDC has noted in one of their own studies that the use of firearms in “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Again, we need to be more self-reliant and willing to take control of our own lives in every situation rather than relying on the faux fairy dust sprinkle around certain places in the community.

So, let us review.

What is the current situation that we find ourselves in?

• Violence is a Part of the Real World
• PEW: Gun Violence in Decline
• CDC: Self Defense is an Important Crime Deterrent
• Mental Health Resources are Lacking
• Government is NOT Spending Allocated Funds on NICS
• Firearms Education is Lacking
• More Gun Laws are Ineffectual

What needs to be done to address the problems crippling our society?

• Increased Focus On Mental Health
• Firearms Education (with Particular Focus On Safety)
• Reintroduce Self Reliance and Self Sufficiency
• Stop Assigning Blame to Others
• Acknowledge and Refute Media Bias
• Use The Funds Allocated To Improve NICS
• Increase Penalties for Crimes Committed with Firearms
• Eliminate Gun Free Zones

Of course, these are just some of the thoughts that came to mind over the past week since being presented with the original question. Again, I didn’t say that they would necessarily agree with my perspective on the topic but I hope that I have been able to answer their question. If you have a question or request, on this topic or others, please feel free to contact me or comment below. You never know, I may end up writing on that topic.

Firearms Friday: Time To Ban Trucks!

During what should have been a joyous Bastille Day celebration in Nice, France, the horrors of terrorism were front and center as 84 people were killed and dozens injuries when a truck plowed through the crowd of revelers. Now the second deadliest act of terrorism in the country’s history, this puts, front and center, the real issue that we have in the world and it has nothing to do with firearms. In fact, it was the police on hand that ended the rampage when the 31 year old Tunisian immigrant was shot and killed before he could continue blazing his deadly trail. Of course, that won’t stop some from making that nonexistent connection.

This is a tragedy and we should all mourn the loss of innocent lives but many should also consider this a wake up call as to the real dangers that lurk in this world. Terrorism as well as radicalized and mentally unstable individuals are the cause of these killings. They have nothing to do with the law abiding people in these countries. In saying this I refer to those of the Muslim faith who denounce these acts of rage as well as those law abiding gun owners whose stomachs turn when they hear of such killings. Two very different groups that seem to be shouldered with the blame of these mass murders.

Mental health is lacking in this country in particular and around the world in general. Additionally, politically correct security measures are putting us all in harm’s way. Finally, in the United States, the pervasiveness of a false sense of security (i.e. gun free zones) is doing nothing but leaving people ill equipped to protect themselves and, in fact, is offering those with evil intentions the opportunity to fulfill their twisted objectives. We need to empower people to speak up and stand up for themselves without the false accusations of racism or fanaticism.

The United States needs to wake up and the world needs to face reality. Guns are not the problem. Islam is not the problem. People are the problem. People on both sides of this equation… those who commit these acts and those who refuse to address the real cause of their actions. We cannot strip people of their rights, we cannot ban firearms, we cannot ban knives, we cannot ban trucks, and we cannot put a halt to immigration. Unless we change the distorted perspectives that have infected millions of people, these horrific events will continue to plague us. We must empower the law abiding people of this country and this world and learn to fear knee jerk political and social castration as much as we do the actions of deranged individuals.  

Firearms Friday: What Happened To Equal Rights?

The news inundating the internet, overwhelming social media, filling the television screen, and flooding newspapers this week is horrifying. I say this not in reference to the officer involved shooting in Baton Rouge but with regard to the events that have transpired since that incident. Despite what we may think we see in the videos from that interaction, we don’t know exactly what happened and we won’t know until a full investigation is conducted. It may or may not have been justified, we just don’t know. That being said, I am still stuck on the simple question of if the known felon in question was white or Hispanic, would the county be in such an uproar? After all, white lives matter too.

That moment has triggered a resurgence in both peaceful protests as well as barbaric violence. People have the right to peacefully assemble in protest of what happened and I will continue to support that right (I would appreciate it if you would support my rights as well for a change). However, the rallying cries echoing from those masses are rather disturbing. It is true that black lives matter but so do the lives of everyone else. By focusing on the importance of black lives above all others is what incites some to commit violence and take the lives of those they deem less worthy to live.  

Now with the assassinations that transpired last night in Dallas, it is even more important that we focus on the rights of ALL people not just those who are of a certain race or occupation. Unfortunately, this will likely not be the resulting shift in mentality. After all, they have been nearly 60 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty so far this year and I have yet to see the people take to the street en masse like they have for the black lives lost. After all, blue lives matter too.

In the end, like many crimes committed in this country, there are many people (of all races but usually of one political party) that will place the blame of said acts on anyone but the individual responsible for what transpired. This ‘guilty’ verdict is usually handed down almost instantaneously. In this instance, as soon as the shooting happened, Law Enforcement as a whole was to blame when, in actuality, we don’t know which individual is to blame in this situation.

But personal responsibility and accountability are passé concepts for many these days. And what is more frightening, is that it seems as though the concept of equal rights, on life support for so long, is now dead. Value your own life, celebrate the joys in your live, and accept responsibility for your own mistakes… this is how we should all live our lives rather than always blaming someone else for the things that go wrong in our lives. Don’t blame white people, black people, gay people, straight people, immigrants, law enforcement, gun owners, or those of a particular faith. Value life… value all life!

Federal Bureau of Inconsistency

A little less than a year ago, on July 29, 2015, the FBI released a statement that wasn’t covered by any of the major news outlets, wasn’t the leading story on the local news, and was never committed to the black and white of the newspaper. It wasn’t news “worthy of dissemination” but, given the recent statement issued by FBI Director James B. Comey regarding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server the verdict announced last summer is finally being brought to light. First, let us review a small section of the statement from 2015:

“Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced… According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

When looking at the “crime” and the penalty it is pretty straightforward and should be easily applied to future situations. This is especially true when you consider the fact that this is pretty much a textbook example of Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information“, of the US Code which outlines the following:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So now let us consider the case at hand. While clearly a much more complicated investigation than the one previously detailed, the results are much more concise in the transgressions committed by Secretary Clinton during her time at the State Department. First let us determine if any of those emails contained classified information that would warrant charges based on the aforementioned statute. For this, I reference two sections from the recently issued statement:  

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

…

“Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

And, just as in the case of Bryan H. Nishimura, intention is not a factor in determining whether or not someone has broken the law. There is a reason why security measures are in place, systems are monitored, and all correspondences are catalogued… these are steps we need to take to protect our information and maintain the level of security necessary in this world. While the FBI is kid in the following section, I would qualify the actions of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, as grossly negligent:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

What really matters here is that this was a breach of national security and, while they haven’t been able to determine whether or not hostile parties have accessed classified information the FBI admitted noted that “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” We were put at great risk by Secretary Clinton and she should be facing charges. But…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

And there is the double standard clearly stated by the FBI Director himself. Of course, today’s testimony makes me think a little about his “interesting” perspective on the law:

Yet Comey said while Clinton showed “great carelessness,” he did not see evidence she and those with whom she corresponded “knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.”

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based only on what is known as “gross negligence.” At the same time, he suggested that if Clinton had worked at the FBI, she could be subject to a range of disciplinary measures including suspension or termination.

“You could be walked out,” he said.

Basically, he is stating that if you get pulled over on the highway but you didn’t realize that you were speeding then you didn’t break the law. Yeah, my head hurts too. While there are many trying to assign motive to Director Comey, I am not going to do so, his more recent statements pretty much sum up his thought process and qualification to hold his position.

All I will say is that there is no way I will ever trust Secretary Clinton… not now and certainly not as someone running for the Presidency. But, if you believe in double standards and hypocrisy, by all means cast your vote for Hillary. Personally, I would much rather vote for someone who believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility… but I will settle for Trump.  

Firearms Friday: Upgrades and Contributions

It is no surprise that recent events have put a greater strain on our rights with particular focus on the second amendment. I am actually surprised that the tragedy in Turkey hasn’t filter back into the debate more than the occasional mention. Thus far, the right decisions have been made overall but this debate and the attempted infringement is by no means concluded. It is because of this simple fact that we have continued to be vocal about our rights and, when able, we have contributed to this fight in a variety of different ways.

It really comes down to the individual. Some have more flexibility in their schedule than others and can be in attendance at events, campaign, and volunteer their time to one or more groups. I have had many opportunities to do this but, as of yet, I have been unable to find any free moments that could be dedicated to this endeavor. Maybe in the future but I am really not holding my breath on this one.

Others apply their efforts in the few minutes stolen from each day to write blogs, letters, article, and other means of communication, dissemination, and advocacy for our rights. This is where my efforts are applied because while there is no way that I am able to set aside hours or days to dedicate to a particular endeavor, I can find the minutes scattered throughout my day between various projects and assignments to write letters, emails, articles, and blog posts such as this. A lot can be done with this found time and this defense of our freedom needs every minute that each of us can spare.  

And, of course, there is the financial means of support of which we are all very familiar. This is especially true now as the campaign calls have increased over the last couple of months driven by recent events and the natural progression of the campaign season. This is an area where I do what I can. Lately, I have been looking more at transitioning from annual to life memberships and, in other situations, upgrading my life membership. Thankfully, the extended payment options for most of the major second amendment organizations is very reasonable and financially possible for most members.

There isn’t a cut and dry answer that one can give when asked “how can I contribute or make a difference?” What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. In the end, we all have to figure out how we can support our second amendment rights and we all must be willing to stand our ground. That is how one goes from contributing to making a difference.