It’s tough to even know where to start this one. Every reasonable, decent adult instinctually wants to protect children. That much we agree on. From there it seems we are split on how to best do that with regard to guns.

                The knee-jerk reaction from one group is to ban all guns from citizen use or ownership and if there are no guns and bullets in the world then no one can shoot our kids.

                The knee-jerk reaction on the other side is that bad guys will always find a way to get guns and if the issue is protecting my children—or yours--the last thing I am going to do is give up my gun.

                No one will ever take my guns away, period. Just to be clear which knee I am jerking with.

                I don’t want to seem insensitive. Any conversation between opposing sides on this subject quickly escalates into an emotional screaming match where neither party seems to be applying many of the rules of logic. I love my children. I have an adorable grandson I want to grow up in a safe environment. I love your children no matter which side of the argument you are on. I know CNN tells you that you shouldn’t trust us hateful, child-killing deplorables on the subject of gun control but once again, that’s just not true.

                Trying to get a grasp on the depth and scope of gun laws already in place in the United States is overwhelming.  There are literally thousands of them. Most of them are duplicates because each state is responsible for most of their own. There are some federal restrictions that cannot be overturned. In some states the state government’s judgement reigns supreme, in others local governments have the ability to pass their own gun laws which can supercede any state law.

                In the state of Florida, currently in all of our hearts and minds because of the shooting last week at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, there are 56 gun laws including one designating schools as gun-free zones and not counting the Federal law that says you’re not supposed to murder people.

                How many are enough? One side says we need more. One side says we just need to enforce the ones we have. Both sides want someone to blame for the senseless slaughter of 17 children and teachers so we blame each other and take our anger out on law-abiding, caring parents and citizens on both sides of the issue.

                And the shootings continue.

                Obama helpfully tweeted (NOT) after the Douglas School shooting that it was time for “…long over-due, common sense gun safety laws.” So I guess the ones we have developed over the past 200 years or so, and heaped upon existing law after existing law until a simple Google search of existing gun laws fries your computer haven’t been very good examples of common sense.  People sure used to be stupid until Obama came along.

                I’m not saying there isn’t room for more gun laws if we decide we want some. Times and technologies change and new restrictions may be in order. I don’t know a police officer who doesn’t wish we would restrict the sale of “assault style” weapons to the general citizenry. I’m certainly ok with banning the sale of AR-15’s to the general population.           

I don’t think that will solve the problem but it may make the lives of the nation’s law enforcement officer’s easier and I’m all for that. Don’t forget that after we banned the sale of fully automatic weapons in 1986 there are still 500,000 of them in circulation that we know about 32 years later.

                Don’t forget that in 2011 in Sweden where it is against the law to even own a firearm if you are merely a citizen, that 77 people—mostly children at summer camp—were murdered by a really bad guy who had never even been to the United States to join the Republican Party.

                I’m not saying laws aren’t necessary, obviously. And sure, ban AR-15’s. I’m all for it. Is that what we’re fighting about? While you’re at it you might also want to take a look at the myriad of weapons like the Rueger Varmint Rifle which operates exactly like the AR-15 but looks more like a .22 than an army gun so nobody notices or uses them to shoot up schools.

                But if you think maybe more laws may not be the solution, is it really the new darling argument of the right and the left that it’s all about mental illness? Well, maybe a little but I don’t think as much as we’d like to believe. Again, we’re all looking for someone or something to blame and be mad at.

                According to an article last week in the Miami Sun-Sentinel there was recently a study (they didn’t say by whom and I couldn’t find it—sorry) that said if we eliminated all the mental health problems in the United States we would only reduce gun violence by 4%. Moreover, we spend 7% of our GDP on mental health in the U.S. and the average spent by all developed nations is 6-8% so we are right in the sweet spot of all the places liberals say they would rather live but won’t move to.

                That said, I do think we should empower law enforcement to take action when anyone makes a statement like, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” as Nicolas Cruz, the Douglas school shooter did. I don’t know, maybe a 72-hour hold would be in order for a psych eval if you say something that stupid and terrifying. Currently no action could be taken because that statement isn’t specific.

                The police were at Cruz’ house 10 times before the shooting for various but unknown reasons. Prior to the shooting, Cruz was jokingly voted “Most Likely To Shoot Up The School,” by his classmates. How many signals do we need? Are we serious about using mental illness as a marker for reducing mass shootings?

                There have been guns in the U.S. as long as we have been the U.S.  Within the last 100 years or so open carry was still commonplace in my state of Colorado, mostly for protection of oneself from bad guys. There weren’t many recorded mass shootings until recently, but maybe that is attributable to weaponry.

                The first semi-automatic weapon (the M-1) was developed in 1937. The first acknowledged modern mass shooting took place in 1949 when 13 people were shot in a New Jersey neighborhood by a not very neighborly neighbor. He didn’t use a semi-automatic. He used a pistol.

                Cross-referencing the My San Antonio and Los Angeles Times newspaper timelines of mass shootings there were five mass shootings between 1949 and 1999. Three of them definitely did not involve semi-automatic weapons and the other two did not specify the type of weapon.

                Starting with the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado there have been 30 mass shootings (three victims minimum, 50 on the top end) in the last 19 years.

                I’m just a guy, and admittedly a dreaded, three-fingered, redneck, drooling, deplorable conservative at that, but I’m thinking it may not even be the weaponry.

                What changed? What did we do to ourselves as a society within the last generation that has led to such a casual disregard for life and a proliferation of trigger-pullers?

                Is it merely a coincidence that the Nintendo 64 was introduced in 1995 and the X-Box in 2001? I am not the original observer of the violence level of video games and the belief that an entire generation of kids have been largely desensitized to violence as a result of those games and Hollywood’s  desire to satisfy new demand for more and more violence driven by gaming technology.

                Maybe, maybe not. Thirty mass shootings in 19 years.

                Is it merely a coincidence that in 2002 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals in California (of course), a judge ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be recited in public schools anymore because it makes reference to God? I am also far from the first person to recognize that “God” and religion have begun taking a more and more distant back seat in the general awareness and guidance of our nation.

                I am not a particularly religious guy. You will not find me thumping a Bible and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ ever. But I have always taken great comfort in the Christian philosophy on which this country was founded (which is currently narrated as a bad thing) such as my personal belief that if we all followed the Golden Rule we wouldn’t need another one.

                I hate to ever define a problem and not be able to suggest a solution but I don’t think I am omniscient enough to solve this one.  (One of the bad things about being conservative is the recognition that you may not have all the answers, but I’m still not persuaded to a liberal point of view just so I can know it all.) Smarter people than me will have to come up with the answer if there is one.

                I just don’t think the cause of mass shootings is diagnosable mental illness (sure they’re all crazy but until they prove it, who knows?) or guns. I think the problem is a societal appetite that can no longer be satisfied by those old corny values espoused on Gilligan’s Island and Leave It To Beaver when movies without lots of killing and explosions in them don’t typically do very well at the box office.

                I think the answer may be in the big collective mirror, my friends.

                Come back, Shane.

I'm Still Proud, But Not Everyone Should Be

                I have always maintained—and I am certain it is not an original thought—that no matter what leadership position a person occupies—boss, military officer, minister or President of the United States—that in general, no matter what you do, one-third of the people in your purview are going to love you, one-third are going to hate your guts, and one-third aren’t going to give a flying flip if you sink, swim or juggle.

                And it’s the affection of that final third that is the battleground of politics in particular.  Winning the hearts and minds of the disinterested or the skeptical or the independent. The numbers (which we’ll get to) from polls following President Trump’s State of The Union Speech Tuesday night show that in spite of the never-ending caterwauling by the lamestream media he is clearly winning that battle.

                But the people I would like to take to task are the decent and patriotic democrats out there (I know, that seems like an oxymoron, but stick with me) who continue to let Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Luis Gutierrez, Maxine Waters and a long list of vapid and hysterical democratic leaders speak on your behalf. Shame on you.

                I know enough of you to know that if my friends and acquaintances are representative at all, there are many democrats who love their families, respect and cherish the flag and their citizenship, want to be safe, are in favor of a robust economy, hate drugs, and have a good measure of common sense (yes they do, c’mon). They also all universally hate President Trump with all their hearts and souls and from somewhere deep in their bowels where that common sense thing goes right out the window and is replaced by screaming hysteria, but they are still decent people and as American as any NRA member.

                A lot of the issue, if not all of it, centers around the President himself. Liberals hate Trump. I saw a meme on social media the other day that said, “If President Trump came out in favor of oxygen, liberals would start suffocating themselves.” It’s up to you to decide if that’s a funny joke or a good idea, but I think it’s a little overstated. I do think though, even the more moderate liberals would at least hold their breath until they lost consciousness.

                I get it. No matter how rabidly or passionately any liberal feels they hate President Trump they cannot possibly hate him more than I (and about 60,000,000 other people) hated Barack Obama. We just didn’t organize clubs to go to the park and howl at the empty sky and the only media voices we had were those dreaded, lying bastards on Fox News and the Satan Brothers—Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But I think generally we celebrated good things that happened for all of America, not just groups of 20 million or less, many of whom probably aren’t even citizens (read: actual Americans).

                It wasn’t Trump’s winning personality we voted for kids. Not even his boyish smile and devilish good looks or the clever way he bashes anyone who opposes him like a trucker looking to start a bar fight.  Nope. Wake up. We voted for Trump because he represented our voice on one central theme: We have had enough.

                Enough mediocrity, known in leftist circles as “The New Normal,” enough “You Didn’t Build That,” enough “Those jobs are never coming back,” when we knew that they could. We had enough of our President apologizing to the planet for our success and for enabling our enemies to do us harm. Enough of the negligent ignorance that allowed our then president to declare ISIS the al-Qaeda JV. Enough of surrendering our position as the unquestionably dominant military power in the world (thereby keeping most of the world safe). We’d had enough of our betrayal of Israel, the disregard for our borders and our potential and actual safety by not vetting folks pouring across our border because not all of them were simple, loving parents looking to make a better life for their families.

                And the list is much, much longer, trust me. Trump merely represented that voice and he still does and I’m sorry we had to stoop to a guy the left finds so socially distasteful. I hope the next Republican presidential candidate in 2024 is in the same mold though. We are sick and tired of the Washington establishment (in both parties which neither the left nor establishment Republicans get). We want more change. Real change without the false hope. And our side feels like Trump has been giving us that.

                As mad as that makes you and as much as you hate us for believing we are headed in the right direction, right now you should be wallowing in shame.

                To have democratic leadership continue their childish temper tantrum to the point that they refused to clap for references to the American flag and the national anthem is shameful. No one can tell me how that is anything other than un-American.

                No democratic applause for job creation, higher wages and bonuses, the lowest black and Hispanic unemployment in history, securing our border, fighting opioid addiction (really, guys?), a path to citizenship for the DACA kids everyone is so worried about, the decline of ISIS, lower prescription drug costs, the strengthening of our defense, and half-a-dozen other disgraceful displays of contempt.

                Well, gee whiz, Obama had black unemployment declining before he left office. Ok. Is it, or is it not at the lowest level in recorded history? Let me save you the Google search—yes, it is. Isn’t that worth celebrating? Isn’t it worth at least applauding?

                Whose side is the democratic leadership on?

                Even more despicably disgusting was the democrat’s refusal to acknowledge the parents of the victims of daughters murdered by MS-13 gang members in this country illegally because of Obama’s policies and the stubborn and very dangerous continuance of sanctuary cities. It’s not the families looking to find a better life we are against coming here, you idiots, it is swell fellows like the MS-13 boys club members we’d like a chance to vet and refuse admission to if we can catch them at the border!!! For Pete’s sake.

                Democrats also refused to applaud young Preston Sharp of Redding (I assume PA, though all three articles I read about him only referenced “Redding,” not PA or CA—way to go again, stalwart lamestream journalists) noticed on a visit to his grandfather’s grave at Arlington that not all veterans had flags or flowers on their tombstones. Young Preston organized a campaign that has since placed over 40,000 flags on the markers of veterans buried at Arlington.

                Bravo young man, and thank you. I am truly sorry America’s democratic leadership thought your actions were so heinous, facist and racist or whatever to withhold their recognition and applause.

                Shame on you, liberals. Shame on every liberal democrat or liberal in independent clothing who is happy Nancy Pelosi was in that chamber standing up and intimidating down any democratic lawmaker who forgot they hate America for a moment and attempted to stand up. Was that a lemon or a tide pod that horrific hag was sucking on?

                Normally I find her dementia and her inability to articulate a thought amusing but she was just plain wicked that night at any level you’d care to measure it.

                Naturally, Fox News decried the actions of Congressional democrats as shameful, but among others, the Chicago Tribune and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post described their behavior as embarrassing and offered the nation an apology. As much as it pains me to credit the Chicago Tribune or the Washington Post, I have to. I’m not ready to say I now respect them, but I certainly respect their backbone on that subject.

                Much to their chagrin, but according to CBS’ own post speech poll 75% of Americans who watched the speech believed it to be favorable. Included in that number, 97% of republicans, 72% of independents and a staggering 43% of normally hateful (of anything Trump) democrats found it favorable.

                Eight out of 10 Americans who watched felt President Trump was trying to unite the country, not divide it. Contrast that with his predecessor who was arguably the most divisive president in American history along racial, demographic and economic lines.

                Only 21% of watchers said the speech made them feel angry and 14% said it made them feel afraid. Sorry, but if you are angry about an improving economy, increased security, an emphasis on ending opioid addiction and everything else positive that was in that speech, we are probably never going to reach each other.

                Fourteen percent said they thought Trump’s policies would hurt them (I wonder where they’re from); 54% thought they would help them; and 32% thought they would have no effect on them but wondered if there were going to be snacks.

                Ninety one percent (91%!) favored Trump’s ideas on repairing infrastructure. Only 32% of people watching identified Trump as the enemy (what? Wait…). And 64% of those watching said they were optimistic about the next five years with Trump as President.

                Forty two percent of those watching the speech were republicans while only about a third were democrats and CNN feels that hugely skewed the statistics. I’ve admitted before that math really isn’t my thing but I’m good enough at it to know that 42 by itself can’t deliver numbers like 75, 80, 54, 91 and 64 in favor of things they heard by itself. Nor can the other 58% of watchers deliver numbers like 21, 14, 14 again and 32 and claim they haven’t maybe lost a little support for their nationwide hate and hostility campaign.

                CNN did loudly proclaim that Donald Trump lied to the public again when he claimed his SOTU had the largest viewing audience in history when it was only the third or fourth largest, so they’ve got that going for them. Whew.

                We’ll see if democratic voters can’t try to do something in November to change the direction of democratic leadership in Washington like republican voters have tried to do with our corrupt and unhelpful establishment. If they do not, I think my shame for their actions will easily dissolve into disgust. I in no way speak for all conservatives. But I bet I speak for a lot of them and I think we are winning the battle with that coveted other third who can be persuaded.

                I remain as proud as I have ever been to be an American. But I am deeply ashamed to share a country with people who can support Pelosi and company.

                Seventeen hundred words and I don’t even care.