2nd Amendment and Why I am Against "Assault Weapon Bans"

"A Well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment US Constitution.

For me personally, there are 3 key aspects to why the 2nd Amendment is important...

1. The inalienable God-Given right to self-defense.
2. The civic duty to be armed and trained to protect the "state" from domestic and foreign enemies.
3. To resist and overthrow a Tyrannical Government.

Note, that no where there do I advocate killing innocent people or children. Also note that no where do I say that the 2nd Amendment applies to hunting. It doesn't and killing people is already illegal in our country. Based upon years of reading not only our constitution, but also the Federalist Papers (papers written by such people as Thomas Jefferson that made the arguments on why the Bill of Rights and Constitution should be ratified) and various history books relating to our Revolutionary War, I truly believe that our 2nd Amendment applies to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Here is an excellent video put together by Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, where he explains that the 2nd Amendment does in fact apply to the individual right:

Here is a link to another great resource that goes into the historical context of why the 2nd Amendment was important when our Constitution was created. https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

To repeal or to modify our 2nd Amendment goes completely against what our founding fathers intended. I also believe that such a move is foolish and short sighted. Referring to my 3 key aspects, we have a right and a duty to our family and loved ones to protect them. The Supreme Court has ruled that our local law enforcement does not carry the responsibility to protect us from harm. The second aspect is important because it ensures every day peace for our society as well as our loved ones. It is very well documented that in WWII, Japan did not attack our mainland because they feared the average armed citizen. I truly believe that this is a significant reason why we have not been attacked by a foreign army in the last 200 years. While many opponents dismiss and ridicule the thought of citizens overthrowing or resisting a tyrannical government, the fact remains that history has proven that great human atrocities have occurred because the citizens had no way to defend and resist such tyrannical governments. Look at how divided our country is today. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, how would you feel if the opposing side were in control and started outlawing the way that you think or started persecuting you because of your political/religious beliefs? If it got so egregious would you not want a way to defend your family and resist such persecution? Don't get me wrong, I pray that we never see that day no matter where you sit politically. I believe in the rights to our opinions and beliefs whether they agree with mine or not.

For years now I have said, "I wake up each day and thank God that none of my guns have ever had to be pointed at another human being. At the same time, I also pray to God that when my time comes to stand at the Pearly Gates that I will still be able to make that statement." I don't own firearms simply because they can kill people. I pray that mine will NEVER have to do such a thing. But because I believe in those 3 key aspects above, I own them. I train with them. And I have them at the ready should I ever need to defend/protect myself, my family, my loved ones, or my fellow man. I truly believe that it is my duty as a Father and as a contributing member of society to do so.

For the last 45+ days we have been bombarded daily by the mainstream media that we need to enact more Gun Control. CNN hosted a "Town Hall" Meeting where the crowd cheered for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. Newspaper and Magazine articles are being written demanding the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. People are calling for the banning of guns, etc. All while looking at you straight faced and saying, "No one wants to take your guns away!" If you look at the legislative bills that are currently introduced in Congress, Florida, Washington, Illinois, Vermont, for example and you will find that these bills do in fact want to take guns away from people. And not one single bill does anything to go after criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes, but rather it punishes law-abiding citizens that simply want to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as described above.

When you hear people say that they want to ban "assault weapons", I first question what they mean by that term. 90% of the time I find that the person doesn't understand what kind of firearm is being proposed to be banned. Keep in mind that rifles like the AR-15 that everyone seems to want to ban is used in less than 2% of annual gun murders. That is correct, according to the FBI, less than 400 people each year die from one of these firearms. More people die from bare fists and blunt objects than these rifles each year. That is not an NRA statistic, but rather comes from the FBI themselves. I hear daily, "no citizen should be able to own a gun that can kill 50 people in one spray." The fact is that an AR-15 CAN NOT kill 50 people in one spray. NO ONE can walk into a Cabelas or Bass Pro and buy such a firearm. These are the laws that are in place today.

Furthermore, we had an "Assault Weapons" Ban from 1994 to 2004. According to the FBI's own reports such ban had little to no affect on gun violence in the US. This is because such rifles are used so rarely. In fact, they are used so rarely that in the FBI reports, they lump all rifles together in a single statistic. A deer rifle is treated the same as an AR-15. So why is there this big push to ban the #1 selling rifle in the US? There are millions of these rifles already in the populace. And yet they are responsible for less than 400 deaths annually. If this was about saving lives, wouldn't logic dictate that you would focus your efforts on the causes that result in the largest number of deaths annually?

Semi-Automatic vs Fully-Automatic

There seems to be a lot of confusion or misrepresentation out there relating to Semi-Automatic and Fully-Automatic. Fully-Automatic is what you see in the movies as "machine guns". A fully-automatic firearm continuously reloads and fires bullets as long as the trigger is depressed and does not stop until the trigger is released or runs out of ammunition. A Semi-Automatic on the other hand fires ONE bullet per trigger pull. Period! This is true whether you are talking about a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun. Only one "bang" each time you pull the trigger. In both cases the "automatic" part of the name refers to the reloading of the firearm and not the actual firing of the firearm.

So why is there such a fight to protect the AR-15?

1. AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle. It refers to the original company that designed the platform, Armalite.
2. An AR is NOT a fully automatic rifle. It legally cannot be modified to operate as a fully automatic rifle.
3. The AR-15 was originally developed and sold to civilians in the late 1950's. It was then redesigned and sold to the Military as a fully automatic machine gun, commonly referred to as the M-16. Today's US Military uses a version referred to as an M4. An M4 has the ability to switch between semi-automatic and 3-round burst.
4. The AR-15 is NOT used by any military today.
5. The materials used to manufacture a "store bought" AR-15 are not designed to withstand a sustained rate of fire for a period of time.
6. The AR-15 platform is the #1 selling rifle model sold in the US. This is due to its modularity, low-recoil, and configurability to support multiple calibers of ammunition. You can literally purchase one rifle and then easily swap out the "upper" and switch calibers to suit your particular needs for hunting, sport, or target shooting.
7. The AR-15 is indeed used for hunting (feral hogs, deer, etc). It is also used for home defense.
8. The AR-15 is rarely used in gun violence per the FBI.

The fact is that the AR-15 and other similar rifles are not fundamentally different than your typical semi-automatic hunting rifles. The difference is that an AR-15 is easily customizable and looks "scary" to anyone not accustomed to guns. Here is a perfect example:

These two guns are both Ruger 10/22 rifles. The one on the top is a gun that many parents buy their 10 year old sons and daughters for Christmas. It is a squirrel gun. Kids shoot soda cans with it. The one on the bottom... EXACT same gun. Uses the same magazines, the same ammunition. Both only shoot ONE bullet each time the trigger is pulled. So why is one okay for 10 year old kids but the other not? The difference is what we call "furniture" or clothing.

Or here is another example:

This is a Hi-Point Carbine. It is the same gun as the handgun above it. Takes the same magazines and same ammunition. Only difference is the stock and the longer barrel. That is it. It is legitimately the same gun as the handgun in terms of the internal working parts. Again, ONE bullet per trigger pull. The handgun is okay, but you will find the Hi-Point Carbine listed on every Gun Control Legislation that I have seen introduced so far. To call that Carbine an "Assault Weapon" is beyond laughable! Again, it comes down to it is "scary" looking. You can see for yourself by searching and looking at HR 5087 on the Congress website.

In Conclusion

I do not know a single gun owner that does not hate turning on the tv or radio and hearing of gun violence. No one wants to hear of a school or workplace shooting. I truly believe that all of us would like to see an end to such events. I pray that we do see this within my lifetime. With that said, there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the solution is in order to reduce gun violence. I believe that there are many things that we can implement without attacking the 2nd Amendment or banning of guns. I believe that we can strengthen laws that are already on the books and if new laws are required then they should be directed at criminals that choose to use a firearm unlawfully vs taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens. I have identified my suggestions on how to accomplish that and I have shared them with my legislative Representatives and Senators.

Thank you

Real "Common Sense" Gun Control that actually addresses Gun Violence

I am proud to be a responsible law abiding gun owner. I grew up on a farm in Central Missouri and have been around guns my entire life. It is safe to say that I own more than one firearm. Someone recently inquired, “Why do you need to have a gun collection?” My response is that in just about every hobby, I have never heard of someone having just “one”. Have you ever heard of a golfer playing 18 holes with just one club? Have you known a fisherman that only has one fishing pole? My serious musically talented friends don't have just one guitar or just one drum set.

For me, gun ownership is a personal choice. It is not for everyone. For me, a person has just as much of right to choose not to own a gun as I do to choose to own one. If you are a non-gun owner, that is fine. That is your choice and I will not judge you for making that choice. I expect the same consideration.

We do have a 2^nd Amendment Right in this country that simply states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The 2^nd Amendment is the 2^nd of the first 10 Amendments that are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. For the purposes of this blog post, I am not going to debate the break down of the text.

I saw today where a commentator on TV tried to argue that the 2^nd Amendment only applied to muskets and State-sponsored Militias. I can only shake my head at such an idiotic statement. To follow that logic, you would then have to make a similar argument that the 1^st Amendment only applied to speech written on manual printing presses and or speech written with a Feather Pen and Inkwell. Idiotic.

No Gun Owner cheers when there is a Breaking News Alert of a Mass Shooting or another occurrence of Gun Violence. When it happens, I immediately say a quick prayer for the victims and their families. Such incidences are heartbreaking. We do need to find ways to reduce Gun Violence. Both sides agree on that. However, that is also the juncture where we then disagree. In this post, I will identify my objections to the current “common sense gun control” talking points and offer my own suggestions on ways that we can really address Gun Violence.

Many say that we have a mental health issue. And for the 60+% of gun-related deaths annually that are suicides, I definitely agree with that. However for the remaining gun-related deaths, I believe that the bigger issue is that we also have a culture issue. Our inner cities have an out of control gang culture. People today do not respect the value of life. Guns have been glorified in our movies, TV, video games, etc. even more so than when I was growing up. When I grew up if you were getting into a fight with someone, there was this unwritten code that you didn't bring anything to a fight that you would want used on you. Therefore you didn't see a lot of fights with knives or guns being involved. Nowadays it feels like all you have to do is yell at someone, and you risk them whipping out a gun and shooting you. We could argue all day long about the merits of religion, but we do need to bring morality back into our society. When I was a kid the Golden Rule was ingrained into my head. “"Do to others what you want them to do to you.” But that can be a separate post another day.

I have already stated that I own guns. I love going to the range and shooting on a regular basis. I also like to go to my hunting land and shoot at targets there as well. My friends and I refer to it as “Hot Lead Therapy”. I have shot Thousands of rounds of ammunition. I can stand here today and honestly say that not a single of one of my guns has EVER been pointed at another human being. They never will be unless that person means me or my family harm. At that point, I have a god-given right to defend myself and my family. With that said, I pray that I am never faced with that situation. I pray that when my time is up on this Earth, that I will still be able to proudly say that I never had to point a gun at another human being.

Groups like Everytown, Moms Demand Action, and other Gun Control Advocacy Groups push for what they call Gun Control to address Gun Violence. President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton love to use the term, “Common Sense Gun Control”. They push for the banning of Sporting Rifles that resemble Military Assault Rifles and call them as such. Mr Bloomberg and his sponsored organizations want the general public to believe that because of the NRA, the average citizen can walk into Cabelas or the local Gun Store and buy a fully-automatic machine gun. This could not be further from the truth. This is an absolute fabrication and misrepresentation. The fact is that it has been illegal for the general public to purchase fully-automatic machine guns since 1934. Yes, you can apply for a license with the federal government. It is expensive and you have to go through an extensive background check. The ATF keeps a very watchful eye on the individuals that are granted this license. It is very cumbersome and very few people go through this process. Don't believe me? Walk into Cabelas or your local gun store and tell them that you would like to buy a fully-automatic machine gun. They will laugh at you.

So what is being pushed as “Common Sense Gun Control?”

1. Universal Background Checks on all private firearm sales. - The Anti-Gun groups promote this idea of a “Gun Show Loophole”. They want you to believe that criminals can walk into a gun show, buy a gun from a vendor and bypass the Background Check process. This too is false. I enjoy going to gun shows in Missouri/Kansas. If you have never been, I encourage you to go see for yourself. There is a laptop at every table with guns. You can't buy a gun at these tables without going through a background check. Now Private Sales between two private individuals can be conducted without a background check. But even doing that is subject to several conditions to be a legal transaction. #1 it HAS to be in person. No matter what the Anti-Gun folks say, you cannot legally sell a gun over the Internet and blindly ship it to the buyer. If you can't make the exchange in person, then you MUST go through a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) who will conduct a background check. #2, both individuals must reside in the same state. I live in Kansas City, Missouri. If I want to sell a gun to my best friend who lives in Kansas City, Kansas, the sale must go through a FFL. #3, The buyer must affirm that he is legally eligible to purchase a firearm. It is illegal to sell a gun to a minor or someone that you know is a felon or a drug addict.
2. Outlaw Internet Gun Sales – Again you can't legally buy a gun on the Internet and have it directly shipped to you. If I want to buy a gun from a store in Ohio, they will ship the gun to an FFL in my home state where I have to physically go to that FFL and go through a background check before I am allowed to take possession. Now, I (as a private seller) could post on Facebook that I have a gun for sale. But again the conditions above apply. If I don't follow those conditions then I have broken the law.
3. Ban “Assault Weapons” and “High Capacity Clips” - Again, you can't buy fully-automatic machine guns. Semi-Automatic guns still only shoot one bullet per trigger pull. The very popular AR-15 Sporting Rifle is a Semi-Automatic firearm. It only shoots one bullet per trigger pull. A Deer Hunting Rifle shoots a much higher power ammunition than an AR-15. Military Veterans joke that an AR-15 goes “pew pew pew” as opposed to “pow pow pow”.  Still don't believe me that an AR-15 is NOT the same as an M-16?  Go to a Military base and ask a soldier which one they would rather go into battle with. Nevertheless, here we go back to the 2^nd Amendment. We have a right to bear arms. Period. But in terms of gun violence. The FBI has repeatedly stated that AR-15's are rarely used in the commission of crime and gun violence. Like less than 2%.  In fact, according to the FBI, in 2011 more people were murdered by clubs, knives, and hammers than all rifles combined.  In reports the FBI has stated that a ban on AR-15's will have minimal affect on Gun Violence and crime.  Yet these "assault rifles" are the guns that the Gun Control folks target the most. Why?
4. Expansion of the NCIS Database used by the FBI for Background Checks – At first blush this sounds like an area that we should be able to agree upon. However, this does open a can of worms. The current administration wants the Social Security Administration to report Seniors who receive their benefits through a third party (this could even be a relative). Now I agree that if a Senior Citizen is of a mental capacity that they are forced to live in an assisted living facility or nursing home because they absolutely can't take care of themselves, then most likely they don't need to purchase a firearm. But do you honestly believe that people in that situation are climbing into a cab and going to Cabelas to purchase a gun? Seriously? How many murders occur annually by a nursing home resident? The current administration want the Veterans Administration to do a similar thing with Veterans. This is an organization who can't even manage the medical services that our Veterans need. As for mental illness, yes we all agree that those that are mentally ill should not have a gun. But who defines what classes as a mental illness and the severity? It was just a few years ago that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness/defect. But also what if a therapist or psychiatrist is an extreme anti-gun person and excessively reports all patients that come to see him? Will this not cause people to not seek the treatment that they need for even minor issues? That seems to go against everything we want as a society.
5. The addition of the Terror List to the NCIS Database – The current Administration also argues that if we have a terror list of individuals that we don't allow to fly on a plane, then we shouldn't let them buy guns. Again, seems logical. However during Senate hearings officials could not explain the criteria of how individuals are added to the Terror List. Furthermore, there is no clear process how an individual can appeal to get their name removed from this list. Ted Kennedy had problems because his name was on the Terror List. It took many months to get it resolved (I believe 18 months). A number of examples have been shared on the internet of people sharing similar names of individuals that are on the Terror list or have been erroneously added and have been unable to fly. There is no example where a citizen can lose one of their other rights without due process (aka their day in court). What safe guards are there that an overzealous administration couldn't secretly add a large segment of the population to this list? What if the government decided that all individuals that post pro-gun statements on Facebook are deemed as home-grown terrorists? Again that is extreme, but not impossible as we move more and more into the digital age?
6. End the “Charleston Loophole” - This relates to the time frame that the FBI has to conduct an NCIS background check. If the FBI does not deny the purchase within 3-business days, then the gun store is allowed to process the gun sale if they choose. Unfortunately, the Anti-Gun folks want the general public to believe that the background check process stops there. In reality, the FBI can continue to process the background check and if after the 3-business day period it is determined that the sale should be denied, then the FFL is contacted and the local law enforcement will go retrieve the firearm if it had been sold.  This 3-business day period was put in to force the FBI to process these background checks in a timely manner.  Without it, it would be very easy for the government to slow down background checks to a crawl, effectively making purchases impossible.

Don't believe anything that I am saying here? Review the information from the FBI here:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

No background check process is going to be flawless. Humans are involved and therefore there will be mistakes made. However there must be a process to appeal to have mistakes resolved. Earlier this year, the FBI reported that there was a backlog of appeals relating to gun purchases that were denied. They also reported that they were putting a moratorium on the processing of these appeals due to a lack of resources. This is effectively denying those citizens from their constitutional right.  I can provide the link to the news article if you don't believe me.

My issue with these “Common Sense Gun Control” proposals is that they do nothing to address criminals getting guns. All they do is restrict the ability of responsible law-abiding citizens from purchasing and owning guns. The University of Chicago did a study in Chicago of criminals that used guns in crimes. (https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/guns) The vast majority of criminals do not buy their guns in gun stores, or gun shows.  They avoid the entire background process. They don't buy AR-15's because they are difficult to conceal. Cities like Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws and yet their murder rates are out of control. Criminals buy their guns on the streets illegally. They get their guns from friends or relatives.

When I talk to supporters of the above ideas, their arguments usually break down to the proverbial “well if we can just save one life it is well worth it!” I am on mailing lists where examples of law-abiding citizens were able to defend themselves from criminals every day.  Don't their lives matter too? If your new law saves one life but in turn causes the death of 5 other innocent people, did you really accomplish your goal? Or simply make one stat look better at the expense of another? To me the argument of “saving just one life” is ridiculous in this case.

So what kinds of actions can we as a society take that really does reduce gun violence? Here are a few suggestions:

1. No media attention to the shooter involved in a mass shooting – Just like how the media as a whole has agreed to not identify the victim of a sexual assault, molestation, or rape, the media should all agree to to not identify the shooter involved in a mass shooting. Several Psychiatrists have stated publicly that most mass shootings would not happen if the shooter did not receive any public notoriety from their actions. Just say “the shooter”... plain and simple. No more flashing their picture on the TV endlessly for days, no hours on end coverage of their background. Stop making their name a household name. Me personally, I would use the terms “Coward” or “Low life” but that may not be the most politically correct thing to do.
2. Enforce and Increase the punishment for Straw Purchases – A straw purchase is when an individual goes to a gun store and knowingly purchases a gun that they in turn plan to give or sell to someone that can not pass the NCIS background check. This is already illegal. (see https://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/strawPurchase.pdf) The Columbine shooters bought their guns with the help of a friend. The San Berdino shooters bought their guns through a friend. In Omaha, Nebraska a felon shot and killed a police officer with a gun that a girlfriend bought for him. There was a guy in Milwaukee who purchased 30+ guns and put them out on the street. In all of these cases (with the exception of the guy in San Berdino who is facing other charges), the straw purchaser got a slap on the wrist. If memory serves correctly they all got probation. This needs to stop!! What good is having a background check if you don't punish the people bypassing it. Increase the penalties. In fact I would suggest that Congress pass a law that says that if you make a straw purchase for someone and that person commits a crime with that gun, then you are subject to the same punishment as that person receives or would have received (in the case where the shooter was killed). If this was enacted and enforced... such purchases would greatly be reduced.
3. Increase the punishment for guns being used in a crime. - If a crime is committed with the use of a gun, then a mandatory extension of prison time is automatically enforced. Some states already do this but I say increase it. And if a criminal kills someone in the case of murder or in the commission of another crime... automatic death penalty. Period. I don't care if the criminal claims that the gun accidentally went off. They made the choice to bring a gun to the crime. If they had chosen differently... that victim would more than likely be alive. Also some criminals are now buying Air guns at places like Wal-Mart thinking that they can accomplish the same thing but avoid any firearm punishment increases. If you bring a gun (real or not) to a crime and your victim has reason to believe that it is real, then the increases are automatic.  I know that in some jurisdictions this is already the case, but I would make it nation-wide.
4. When not at home guns MUST be locked up. - This one will get some resistance but hear me out. There is a saying, “with great power. comes great responsibility”. When a gun owner is not at home, he can not effectively control the firearm. Therefore it should be required that a gun owner must make a reasonable attempt to secure that firearm. This can be with trigger locks, storage in a safe or lockable gun cabinet, or in a locked gun case. The argument against this will relate to home defense. This is why I say “when the gun owner is not at home.” If the gun owner is home, then this requirement is lifted because the gun owner is able to control the access and use of the firearm. As for the definition of the term “gun owner”... the gun owner is anyone over the age of 18 (for rifles) / 21 (for handguns). An immediate family member that has gone through a Hunter/Gun Safety course of any age over 10 is also qualified. Again this is to enable a person to defend their home. The bottom line is that guns should not be left unsecured when no one is home. This will cut down on the number of guns that are stolen during burglaries and reach criminals.
5. If you sell a gun without going through a FFL (ie background check), and that gun is used in a crime, then you are subject to a crime and punishment. - Basically, this doesn't stop private gun sales but it does cause one to evaluate their legal risk for selling a gun privately. If you go through an FFL and the buyer passes the background check then you have documented proof to end your liability for that firearm. However, if you decide to give/sell a gun to your buddy or cousin and he then uses it in a crime.. then you are subject to related criminal charges. The one exception here is the exchange of a gun among immediate family members. If you loan a firearm to a buddy and they then commit a crime then you are criminally liable for the crime committed. The argument “I didn't know he intended to kill that person or rob that bank.” is not a defense.  The goal here is to discourage private gun sales, but at the same time accommodate the transfer of firearms between generations in a family setting.
6. Keep guns from small children. - I hate hearing in the news of a child finding an armed gun and accidentally killing themselves or another child. When small children come to visit my home, my firearms are locked up and far away from where those children can get to them. If a child finds and handles your unsecured loaded weapon, then you should be charged aggressively with child endangerment. Period. The ONLY exception would be if that child has passed a State-endorsed Hunter/Gun Safety Course and is at least 12 years old. As for the “home defense” argument, keep the firearm on you or in your control.
7. Limit access for Mentally Ill. - Again this is a very slippery slope. It is already illegal for individuals that have been involuntary incarcerated in a mental institution from buying guns. States do need to do a better job of getting this information into the database and should be held accountable to make this happen. I would limit individuals that have been diagnosed with illnesses of schizophrenia and other violent illnesses. While depression seems like a common sense one, short of someone being suicidal, most psychiatrists agree there are various levels of depression and most levels are not violent natured. I do agree with the option that a family member can go to a judge and argue that a relative is not of sound mind and thus should be barred from access to firearms. This allows due process and gives the person an opportunity to defend himself against losing his ownership to firearms.

There are 7 examples of ways that directly address gun violence. These would have an immediate positive affect in reducing Gun Violence and gun-related crimes. And yet not a single one limits or denies a responsible law-abiding citizen for exercising his 2^nd amendment right.

I truly believe that while the Gun Control folks pay “lip service” and say “we just want to reduce gun violence and these are common sense measures that we can take. We respect the 2^nd Amendment.”, their true intent is to disarm the American people. When you get into a dialog with Gun Control folks it almost always reverts to “Well I don't understand why you need a gun.” Just this week a woman on the Democrat Party Platform committee publicly stated that she does not understand why anyone needs to own a gun. The current administration has signed a UN Small Arms Treaty that goes against our 2^nd Amendment. Both President Obama and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton have stated that we should look at similar gun bans as those in the UK and Australia.

If you really want to see the mindset of these Gun Control Supporters, just go on to Facebook and go to their pages.  Casually read through the comments of every post.  These people absolutely detest guns and think that gun owners are the lowest life form on the planet.  They aren't going to stop at implementing a few "commonsense steps"... these people want guns gone entirely.  This isn't the NRA saying this as some propaganda ad.  Go see for yourself.  Go onto Twitter and view the comments that these supporters make.  My favorite is when one of them says "Well I am a gun owner and I support these measures."  Then when you talk to them they can barely describe the difference between a revolver and a Glock.

If this was truly about reducing Gun Violence, then they would be promoting ideas that actually do something to reduce gun violence, much like the examples that I shared.  They would pursue actions that actually target criminals rather than punishing responsible law-abiding gun owners.  I suggest however that using the noble aim of reducing Gun Violence is simply a veiled attempt to take away guns from citizens.  That is the end goal.  While they don't openly state that they want to ban guns, it is very easy to see by their actions and their comments when arguing for those actions that their real intent is to stop at nothing until all guns are gone.  Period.

Airline Seating Squeeze and Reclining

This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves with traveling these days.  I appear to not be the only one as altercations between passengers are making the news more lately.  In fact, a flight was diverted because two passengers got into a heated argument over this issue.  What is this issue?  Passengers reclining their seats during the flight.  It is very inconsiderate of the passenger behind you and downright rude and insensitive.

Years ago, seats were wider and had much more legroom.  One could easily recline their seat with no imposition on the person behind them.  This was a great feature when on a long flight and you wanted to kick back and take a nap.

However times have changed.  Airlines have found ways to squeeze more seats into a small space.  It has gotten to the point where you have a very limited space to so much as pull down the tray in front of you.  I recently flew on United Airlines and they do offer the ability to "upgrade" to a row of seats that do offer a bit more legroom than their economy seats.

For the economy seats where space is very limited, it is my belief that airlines should either physically fix the seats so that they can not recline, or at a minimum make it a policy that if someone is sitting behind you then you can not recline your seat.  Some will argue that they paid for their seat and thus should be able to recline if they so choose.  I argue back that the person behind you paid for their seat and deserves their seat space without feeling like the person in front of them is in their lap.  If you have a long flight and wish to be able to recline then feel free to upgrade to a seat with more legroom.  I have no problem with that.  But back in the economy seating, reclining should be forbidden outright, or at a minimum when a person is seated behind you.

I am encouraging all Airlines to revisit their policy on this and look at it from both passengers point of views.

Michael Dunn... you are a murderer. It is just plain and simple.

By now, I am sure that you have heard of the State of Florida vs Michael Dunn case (aka the "Loud Music" Case).  This past weekend Mr Dunn was convicted on 3 counts of Attempted Murder and a mistrial was declared on the more serious 1st-degree Murder charge.  Prosecutors have promised to pursue another trial to convict Mr Dunn on that charge.  If you are unfamiliar with the case, there were 4 black youths in an SUV playing their music loudly.  A white man asked them to turn the music down.  A confrontation ensued and the white older man opened fire (10 shots I believe) into the SUV killing one of the passengers, Jordan Davis.

Some have argued that because the jury did not return a guilty verdict on the 1st degree murder charge, then Mr Dunn got away with murder.  And somehow this means that it is okay for a white man to kill a black boy still today.  My first reaction is that Michael Dunn is no young man (he is 47 years old).  The charges that he was found guilty of carry potentially 60 years of prison by themselves.  So even without the murder conviction, the guy is going to live his remaining life behind bars.  Period.  Additionally, he was not acquitted of the charge.  The jury just could not all come to an agreement that it was 1st degree murder.  So the Prosecution gets to have another trial to prove their case all over again.  But at the end of the day, the guilty verdicts on the other charges are in effect.  Albeit subject to appeal, but that will take years and I believe the facts stand on their own.  So no...  Mr Dunn did not get away with murder.  Our justice system is working just as it is intended.

Personally I think the Prosecution should go for 2nd degree murder instead.  I honestly don't believe that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Jordan Davis.  The topic of this Prosecutor in Florida over charging crimes is starting to gain merit as a topic.  He over charged the Zimmerman case and I believe he over charged this case as well.  But that will have to be a different topic for a different day.

Today's headlines have Mr Dunn claiming that he is the victim in this case.  The more this guy talks the more ignorant he proves himself to be.  The media is eating this up like crazy and really hyping it up.  Mr Dunn is no victim in this case.  Mr Dunn is a murderer.

First, if Mr Dunn was offended by the loud "Thug Music" as he called it, then he should have gone into the store with his fiance so that he did not have to listen to it.  Instead he chose to stay in the car.  Secondly, he took it upon himself to ask the youths to turn down the music.  I have no doubt that he thought he was asking in a polite manner.  The victims testified as such and the music was turned down.  However, according to their own testimony, Jordan Davis took issue with the request and demanded that the music be turned back up.  Which it was.  From there the "stories diverge".  Mr Dunn claims that threats were made on his life.  That Jordan Davis told his friends that he was going to kill him.  My initial thought is... "How did Mr Dunn hear these threats over the loud music?"
 
I have two issues with Mr Dunn's self defense claims.  Number one, no one testified seeing any of the youths get out of their vehicle and approach Mr Dunn's car in a threatening manner.  They were in their vehicle and Mr Dunn was in his.  Mr Dunn was not physically being assaulted.  Disrespectful verbal assault does not justify pulling out a gun and firing 10 shots into another vehicle.  Number two, if Mr Dunn truly felt that he was in danger, then after the victims drove off he should have ran into the store and demanded they call 911.  He should have stayed on the scene and spoken with officers to report the threat on his life and the altercation.  However he left and drove to his hotel, ordered a pizza and relaxed for the evening.  While no one will ever truly know if those youths really did have a gun and they discarded it while they were away from the gas station (they later returned begging for help for their dead friend), I am a betting man that this was just a "story" made up by Mr Dunn to claim it was all self-defense.

So a victim of being disrespected by a group of youths?  Maybe.  But you are a grown man and by no means does that grant you the right to get mad, escalate the situation, and then randomly fire a gun at them.  No Mr Dunn, you are a murderer.  It really is just that plain and simple.  You deserve all of the prison time that you get.
 

Syria... The Pandora's Box of our future?

I do not claim to be an expert on the Middle East.  I do however understand that we can not apply the same reason and logic when dealing with that region as we would dealing with anyone else.  History has proven that it does not work.

We have seen uprisings in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria.  I do believe that the people of those nations should not be oppressed and deserve to live free from Tyranny.  The problem is that they do not understand how to live in a democratic world.  Take Egypt for example.  They elect a President, and rather than wait for the next election like we do here, a percentage of the population decides to stage a military coup.

I do believe that our Foreign Policy is in shambles.  It is absolutely disgraceful and embarassing.  I do not put all of the blame on our current Administration, but I do believe that they have made it worse rather than better.  The sheer incompetence of this Administration is overwhelming.  Sadly the media has refused to hold them accountable.  I do fear that through this Administration's incompetence, they may have backed us into having no choice but to respond militarily.  President Obama said himself, ""If you don't do it, you send a message of impunity.  Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah will look at the United States and say 'Nothing means anything' -- that's what's at stake here."

Syria is a true quagmire in my view.  The rebels there are begging for the world's help.  I feel for them.  But Al Qaeda is in there fighting alongside the rebels.  Al Qaeda is our sworn enemy.  So not only will we have to deal with the current regime, but we will have to figure out who is Al Qaeda and who are legitimately Syrian Rebels.  And if we do help the rebels, will Al Qaeda turn their attention towards us?

CNN reported this morning, "In June, France said sarin had been used several times in the war, including at least once by the Syrian regime."  Hmm...  now if chemical weapons have been used previously several times and "at least once by the Syrian Regime" then who else is using them and where is the outcry against those groups as well?

Don't get me wrong, NO Government on this planet should use Chemical Weapons.  Especially on its own people.  It is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated.  Assad and his regime should be punished for using chemical weapons on its own people.

Obama is quickly learning what Bush learned a long time ago.  The UN is a joke.  Russia and China are hell bent to veto anything that the rest of the world believes is the right course of action.  The Security Council has become a laughing stock as it is the epitome of grid lock.  Doing anything in this world with the UN's blessing is nearly impossible.  So I do not hold President Obama to the "Must have UN Permission" to proceed standard.

I have grave concerns when I do not see our normal allies up in arms sharing our same outrage and desire to do something about it.  Our European Allies in recent days have pulled back the rhetoric and are now calling for diplomatic solutions.  Why?  Is it because they see similar polls where 80% of our citizens oppose military action against Syria?  Or do they know something that our media is withholding from us?

I believe that based upon History, Military action is the only option that will have any long term success.  Unfortunately that option requires more than just firing some tomahawks from the Mediterranean if we are going to see any fruitful success.  For us to do that though, we need to get a coalition together like we did in the first Gulf War.  We can not do this alone.  What happened to the League of Arab Nations?  You never hear about this organization the last several years?  These are the people that should be screaming and taking the lead with us acting in support.

My largest concern/fear is that if we attack Syria, that this will cause a domino effect in the region.  Russia and China don't scare me because they will not get militarily involved against us.  They have too many higher priorities than to go to war with us.  But we have the loonies in Iran.  I am not convinced that they are not smart enough to not use this as an opportunity to start trouble with Israel.  Remember that the people in power there believe that this is all a sign of their equivalent to our "Revelations" in our Bible.

Remember that both World Wars started in what appeared as isolated events that escalated.  Is Syria that Pandora's Box that could lead to a much bigger conflict?  I don't believe that we are talking World War 3 here, but I do fear a war that makes the recent wars look small.

I am glad that President Obama is going to go through Congress.  He really doesn't have a choice after his VP went all over the airwaves in 2007 threatening impeachment of Bush if he attacked Iran without Congress approval.  I do not hold any criticism of President Obama for having to take this course.  Frankly, given the risks of escalation, I would feel better if Congress was involved versus just President Obama.

I do pray that our President and the leaders in Congress make the right decision to get us through this.  I am against going at this alone.  I hope that the world's attitude changes after the UN reports come out proving that Chemical weapons were indeed used.  And if the report doesn't prove it, then I hope that we will pursue diplomatic avenues until we do have our allies lined up in support of military options.

First it was Big Bird, now it's Binders?

In Tuesday night's Presidential Debate, Romney discussed his cabinet being made up of a number of women.  Here is the transcript:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?"

ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.  I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page4.html#ixzz29kDLChMu

It was during this answer that Romney made the now infamous "Binders of Women" comment.  Since making that comment the Democrats have seized upon this as if it were yet another example of Romney's and the GOP's sexist view of women.  Seriously?

Rather than talking about how the price of gas doubled over the last 4 years, or how the number of people on welfare has grown by 32%, or how we need to get 23 million people back to work, this is the hot issue that comes from the Democrats?

Can anyone really with a straight face sit there and say that Romney meant anything other than "Binders full of resumes of qualified women candidates?"  Set the politics aside for a second and really ask yourself if you truly believe otherwise.

Furthermore, reading that answer that Romney gave, WHERE is there any example of sexism?  I don't see it.  In fact it looks like to me that he referenced a 3rd party to reinforce the fact that he is NOT a sexist!

Of course the main stream media won't report on this, but a number of women that worked for Romney's administration, including one or two that were on his cabinet, have come out in support of Romney and said that they enjoyed working for the man.  One in particular said in an interview that while he didn't always agree with her opinion, she always felt like he respected her opinion on a topic.  Does this really sound like a man that is sexist?

This is all just "noise" to distract the voters from the real issues.  Can we please get back to the real issues at hand?!?!  Seriously?  Frankly all of this talk about Binders and Big Bird just makes President Obama and the Democrats look very desperate.

As a voter, I don't want to have all of this "noise" thrown at me.  Tell me what you are going to do these next four years to address the high gas prices, how you are going to improve the economy so that more people are working and less people are on welfare.  Tell me how you plan to address the budget deficits and the overall national debt.  These are the issues that the American Voter is concerned about.

Follow-up regarding Libya Attack

It amazes me how the Main Stream Media is completely sweeping this story "under the rug".  I swear that Headlines talking about the failures of the Romney Campaign were more dominant in the news than this story.  It is truly sad.

So what have we learned in the last 10 days?  Our Administration spent the first 9 days claiming that the attack in Libya was an out of control spontaneous protest over an Anti-Muslim film.  A trailer to a film at that.  For several days the President of Libya disagreed with this and was very public in the International Media that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.  One that they had warned the US about as much as 3 days prior to the attack.  Today finally the Administration changed course and said that it is "self-evident" that this was a pre-meditated terrorist attack.  Of course there was no mention of being alerted a few days prior.

The bottom line is that for 9 straight days our Presidential Administration lied to the American people.  For 9 days they claimed that this was a spontaneous protest.  Turns out there was no protest at all.  It was a direct attack.  They claimed that the Ambassador had "sufficient" security detail including 2 former SEALS.  The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador's security was provided by a Libyan militia.  The 2 former SEALS were NOT part of his security detail.  They were there on "other business".  But when the attack occurred they took up arms and attempted to repel the attack.  They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor for doing so.

I believe that the President and White House has been so focused on the campaign that they completely dropped the ball here.  While the attacks occurred and the days following, the President was busy with fundraisers and campaign events.  He just started attending his Daily Security Briefings in person because it had gotten out that he skipped the majority of them thus far in his Presidency.

No I am not proposing that the President orchestrated this uprising in the Muslim world, nor this attack on our consulate.  Normally, this would be a benefit to the Republicans.  However, I believe it is the failed International policies and the naiveté of this administration that is to blame.  This President claimed back in 2008 that if he were to be elected, then Muslim tensions and hatred toward us would magically diminish because of his background.  I believe that this arrogance has proven his incompetence in the world.

I further blame the Main Stream Media for this lack of coverage of this event.  Our country was attacked on 9/11 and yet they continue to keep this story on the back burner in fear that it look negatively on our President.

I hope that Congress will look into this.  Who knew exactly what and when?  How was this Ambassador not better protected?  How did we go 9 days of being lied to, when the International Media clearly had the proper read on the story?