Gun Control - 2023

Dr. Feelgood Rides Again!

One of today’s headlines is yet another example of what’s being pushed to the public over and over again as a part of the left-wing narrative. It’s as if they believe if they see it in print enough times it’ll somehow come true.

Georgia Dem lawmakers call for special session to pass gun safety laws after mass shootings

If the left were truly talking about gun safety the right would be right there with them but the term “safety” is a propaganda term - code-word if you will - for prohibition, registration, confiscation, and worse. There are three main problems with the premise that gun control equates to gun safety. 

One is that the U S Constitution stands solidly in the path of the gun grabbers. Over and over again Cities and States pass laws restricting the purchase and ownership of firearms only to spend lots of taxpayer money in the courts defending them and eventually having them overturned as unconstitutional. “... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Perhaps a case can be made that certain reasonable restrictions do not meet the definition of “infringed” (private ownership of a hand grenade or a howitzer) but a semi-automatic rifle or handgun is so ubiquitous, and has been for so long, that even common sense precludes the application of “reasonable” to that debate.

Another reason gun control does not equate to gun safety is that history proves the point. Areas of the US with the strictest gun laws are not the safest places. Chicago, for example. The left will argue that nationwide gun control would overcome the reasons gun control laws don’t work on a local basis but nationwide alcohol prohibition didn’t work (ask Elliot Ness) and we don’t seem to be winning the Federal War on Drugs. When one recognizes just how many millions of firearms are in circulation it becomes clear that enormous amounts of time and money would be necessary to eliminate them all, even if it were possible to completely stop the flow of new ones.

Thirdly, and perhaps the most egregious problem with today’s gun grabbers is that they are misguided at best and many are knowingly gaslighting. Violation of the constitutional rights of the entire US population in exchange for an unproven and questionable sociological experiment is just not something we do. Not in a free society anyway. Totalitarian governments do this, which is the bedrock reason for the existence of our Second Amendment.

Gun control advocates proclaim a need to “feel safe” in our schools, shopping malls, and communities. Bulldozing the rights of law-abiding citizens is apparently justified in their minds to achieve this goal. Passage of new laws restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is apparently justified to enable Politicians to claim they have done something to make us feel safe. Legislation with fancy titles that bear little resemblance to the actual effect of that legislation is another way politicians justify their frivolity.

But there’s more! Feel-good legislation that does nothing to actually increase public safety, legislation that serves only to bolster a politician’s image, or bills that sneak bad law in by misrepresenting its true intent is not just unproductive. The worse aspect of it is that we’ve trampled on all those constitutional rights and wasted all the money and effort instead of taking the admittedly harder path of finding actually productive ways to address the problem. 

Let's take all this gun-grabbing debate off the table for a time certain and appoint a bipartisan task force to study gun safety with the proviso that their recommendations must in no way infringe upon the rights afforded under the US Constitution. Let it hear from anyone who wants to come and make a proposal. There would be more of a chance at actual improvement of our society than what’s going on now.

 

Lefties are Nazis?

Lefties are Nazis?

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Liberal is down-and-out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that those he doesn't like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a Liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his. 

If a Conservative is unhappy with an election, he grumbles and goes to work the next day. If a Liberal is unhappy with an election, he burns down a Starbucks, throws rocks at the police, and takes two weeks off for therapy. 

If a Conservative reads this, he'll show it so his friends can have a good laugh. If a Liberal reads this, he will try to sue you because he is “offended”.

          Poke that Conservative Bear too hard or often and see what happens!

We Don't Need No Steenkin' Badges!

“We are Federales”

“Let me see your badge”

“Badges? We don’t need no steenkin’ badges!”

- from the 1948 movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Tyrone, GA thought police, circa 2025

Law enforcement in the United States relies on local organizations to enforce our laws and investigate alleged crimes. This is in contradiction to the system used in many other countries whereby the Federal or central government of that country carries out those functions on a nationwide basis. Obviously, arguments can be made for and against both systems.

Mexico is an example of the use of a Federal Police Force, sometimes referred to as “Federales”. Having some limited first-hand experience with the Federales, many of us are of the firm opinion that our locally-controlled LE system is preferable. MUCH.

In the coming weeks and months, we Americans will have a debate about how much of our police system will be federalized. Justified or not, the movement for police reform is strong enough to initiate changes. Some of them will be meaningful and beneficial, but many will be knee-jerk, feel-good reactions to extremist pressure and these will have ineffective results at best, and unintended negative consequences at worst. Our ability as constituents to demand reasonable, rational debate will determine how much of each is adopted. If we shirk this responsibility the ramifications could be severe. We must listen to “the other side” and be prepared to offer constructive alternatives - not just tired rhetoric.

Despite the limitations of Posse Comitatus, Federal incursion into domestic law enforcement has become a disturbingly persistent trend. National Guard units are being called up to monitor protests and demonstrations, U.S. Marshals are being used to enforce pedophilia laws, used military equipment is being given to local organizations to “militarize” our local cops; to name just a few.

Individually, these examples of Federal participation in local affairs seem to have beneficial effects because they reduce the local tax burden and provide resources that local government officials would otherwise have to find (pay for). There is already talk of Federal legislation to govern local police procedures. Federalization is, however, a creeping evil because we will wake up one day to find that our local police officers are no longer local. 

Obviously, Federal control of certain functions is beneficial and necessary. National Defense, Immigration Control, Interstate Commerce, and many other services all Americans want and need are better served with central control. For many others, like education, property rights, voting, and law enforcement, local control gives us the ability to conform these functions to community standards. The United States was formed as a confederation of political entities banded together for their common good - not for the purpose of homogenization. “States Rights” is an important concept in our Constitution.

The thought of Nancy Pelosi, or Donald Trump, for that matter, dictating the curriculum in my child’s classroom, or appointing the Chief of my town’s police department is repugnant.

Now, if we agree that we don’t want Federales patrolling our neighborhoods in humvees we need to address some problems with our local law enforcement organizations. In some cases, we don’t support our LEOs well enough and in some cases, we tolerate rogue officers when we shouldn’t. Both of these shortcomings are the result of apathy on the part of City Councils and County Commissions. That apathy is the result when WE don’t elect the proper candidate and don’t hold our officials accountable for their failures. If we citizens/voters don’t become more active in our supervision of this critical element of our society, the Pelosis and Trumps in Washington will surely fill the void.

Walt Kelly’s Pogo uttered the most appropriate and prophetic words:

“We have met the enemy and he is us."

Don't Californicate Georgia

I visited Portland, OR back in the early ‘80s. It was a beautiful city and home in those days to friendly, ordinary people. There was respect for the law, each other, the environment, and common sense. Taxes were not outrageous and the government was not intrusive. Like the rest of Oregon, Portland seemed sort of Idyllic, especially as compared to its southern neighbor; known even then as “The Land of Fruits and Nuts. While there I observed a bumper sticker affixed to a car with Oregon license plates which reflected a common sentiment of the time among Oregonians;

Don’t Californicate Oregon

I once owned property on Fripp Island, SC, a barrier island near Beaufort populated mostly by South Carolinians and other Southerners who owned second homes there. The Island essentially governed itself as an unincorporated community observing State and County laws but mostly by plain common sense. As more and more “out-of-state” people discovered our little island, common sense became harder to fiend in community discussions.

While riding around one day on my golf cart I waved at a neighbor and then noticed he had affixed a bumper sticker to his cart. It reflected the thoughts of many of the long-time property owners.

We Don’t Care How You Did It Up North

I am reminded of these two separate but related situations when I hear that companies are relocating from California to Texas and bringing thousands of jobs with them. We in Georgia are experiencing a similar influx due to the attraction of business and industry from California and the Rust Belt. While economic growth is generally desirable, there are side effects that are not. It is understandable that someone whose politics has destroyed his own backyard might envy the healthy environment we have here in the South. It is naive to think the interlopers will not try to bring their intellectually slovenly lifestyle with them.

I say to folks who may want to immigrate to Georgia from those liberal, progressive, or socialist enclaves where stupid politics has made life miserable: “C’mon down” to Georgia but please bring money and don’t forget to leave. If you’re an American Citizen we’ll even give you a temporary work visa but not a voter ID. You’re welcome here but your socialist, race-baiting, ballot-stuffing brand of politics is not. I say to my fellow Georgians; beware of the Trojan Horse for which our well-meaning but misguided politicians are about to open the gate.

Don’t Californicate Georgia

Language

Language - The road to consensus or tool of trickery?

If you’re a SciFi fan you know that successful “first contact” is essential to avoiding interplanetary conflict. When the first Vulcan arrived on Earth, he uttered the greeting: “Live Long and Prosper” Not understanding what he said, the good-old-boys asked themselves: “Was that a sexual innuendo concerning our Mother?”

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and friendship evolved despite problems with the language. After the Universal Translator was perfected Earthlings didn’t have to guess if Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, or others were disrespecting their ancestors because accurate definitions of words in each language could be interchanged by a competent artificial intelligence. Conflicts still arose from cultural and other differences but linguistic misunderstandings were eliminated and common ground was found. A Universal Translator would be helpful indeed in today’s socio-political discourse.

Protest = Riot?

Today's “Journalism” - and I use the term loosely - is rife with words that don’t seem to portray the meaning indicated by the context of the story, For example: “During the protest, protestors broke into the store and made off with the loot.”  Perhaps the word “protest” should have been “riot” and the word “protestor” should have been “looter”.

Given the diminished level of professionalism rampant in Journalism today, a case could be made that the writer simply didn’t know any better or that she was allowing a personal bias to color the context of her “reporting.” An improper but innocent choice of words, perhaps? Okay, let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. It’s understandable that this writer doesn’t want to offend the person stealing the boom box. He was, after all, just about to turn his life around and was carrying that gun only to protect himself from police brutality. 

Journalistic incompetence and a writer’s innocent display of “snowflake syndrome” are more to be pitied than scorned. In bygone times professional growth, fostered by seasoned editors and peer pressure would eventually instill competence, ethics, and integrity into such writers or weed them out. Regrettably, yellow journalism has flushed integrity out of the profession to a point where internal enforcement of professional standards no longer seems to exist.

Alas, this kind of mischievous behavior, which might be labeled as merely misguided, is not the most dangerous misuse of the language. More sinister forces have latched on to the practice of “dictionary creep” in an intentional effort to deceive.

It’s bad enough that individual “journalists” and well-meaning “activists” carve up the language in an effort to deceive the public or promulgate a bit of sensationalism but when established media organizations engage in this onerous practice they have violated the public trust.  Historically, the Fourth Estate, with the First Amendment as its powerful shield, has stood as the ultimate independent force standing between the people and tyranny. Today, most of the established media has gone over to the dark side, pledging its allegiance to the god of profit instead of fairness and integrity. Sensationalism sells, and the rape of the English language is a powerful building block in that effort.

Justice = Revenge?

Advocates of one side or the other in a political or cultural debate have adopted the “dictionary creep” tactic to draw attention to their viewpoint. Cries for revenge following a violent incident are frequently shrouded with the word “justice.” Revenge is an understandable and common emotion, although our legal system does not guarantee it nor does it even condone it. Justice, on the other hand, is both guaranteed and universally supported. Seeking revenge won't get you nearly as much sympathy as seeking justice.

Calls for “justice” from a violent mob of arsonists sounds a lot like “let’s give him a fair trial and then hang him.” Elected officials and celebrities who pander to these mobs are guilty of a most egregious crime against our society. “The maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings” is not the same as: “to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit.”

The substitution of justice for revenge, when uttered by an emotionally involved party, is understandable, albeit inexcusable. Community leaders, clerics, and elected officials do a much greater disservice to us all, and especially the injured parties, however, when they obfuscate the discourse in this manner. Their thinly-veiled attention-seeking gives false hope to their constituents and causes doubt in others. Neither is conducive to producing an equitable solution.

Racist?

“That’s racist!” is a cry often heard as a reply to a statement in a debate. It often really means; “That’s a point of view with which I disagree (but I don’t have a logical or valid reply).” According to Dictionary.Com, “Racism is the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.” While it’s universally accepted (or should be) that racism, as defined here, is wrong thinking, it is equally wrong to slander someone with the term “racist” through the misuse of that term. A person is not a racist just because she disagrees with the concept of reparations, affirmative action, immigration quotas, or DC statehood, among others. Many other important factors are at play in these debates. A preference for using a knife and fork over chopsticks does not mean a diner is anti-Asian.

Change is inevitable. When it is effected through reasonable debate and consensus it will enhance our society and endure. When it is imposed through trickery or tyranny it will not endure nor will anyone benefit from it.

Perhaps Elon Musk will perfect the Universal Translator or Biden will buy us all a copy of Merriam-Webster

Justice?

 

Let’s set aside, for the moment, discussion about the accuracy of the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial. After all, the American Justice System includes an opportunity to appeal a conviction before “justice” is fully served. Perhaps justice was served for George Floyd but the health of our Republic has been damaged.

Certain elements in our society and, a coven of elected officials. have used the process for selfish reasons and this is a greater travesty that denies justice to the American people and even to the family and supporters of George Floyd. Their words and actions will likely diminish or delay, rather than enhance, any meaningful reform.

Our justice system has evolved over the 250 years of our Republic into one that represents the will of the majority while preserving the rights of the minority. It's not perfect but it is the best on the planet. Neither side holds, nor should it, unilateral power over the process. Elected officials, political pundits, and charismatic idiots don’t get to sway the process on a case-by-case basis. They tried to do just that in the Chauvin trial.

Too many of the voices we’ve heard during the months of pre-trial rancor have unilaterally amended the dictionary to change the meaning of “Justice”.  Justice is NOT the term we use to describe a conclusion which agrees with our own worldview. Justice is NOT a synonym for Revenge. It is a term that describes a conclusion arrived at by the application of an established set of rules applied evenly and fairly. Criminal Justice in America includes indictment, trial, sentencing, and appeals. True justice cannot be served until all of the system’s components have been utilized.

When the majority agrees that some facet of our criminal justice or policing system needs changing, there are established procedures for effecting such change. Looting and other violence are not among them. When a citizen, or minority group of them, advocates a change they must convince others of the validity of their opinion and that their proposal should indeed be applied to all - uniformly and fairly. Violent acts by members of the minority do not, usually, prompt sympathy from proponents of the opposite viewpoint. Police supporters, for instance, will not be favorably impressed by a “protester” throwing rocks at a police officer on duty at the protest even though they may privately support some of the grievances of the protestors.

Some of our elected cockwombles have egregiously violated decorum, precedent, and their oaths of office when inciting violence ("get more confrontational") in earshot of the jury during the trial or uttering thinly veiled advice to the jury (“praying the verdict is the right verdict”). It plausibly deniable that these two were inciting violence and attempting to tamper with the jury but both statements are utterly transparent in their real intent - considering the source and surrounding narrative. The word “pandering” comes to mind. Solidifying support from the oppressed masses is a favorite tactic of tyrants and it’s even better when they can do that without any political or monetary cost.

Some might think that sacrificing 20 or 30 years of Derek Chauvin’s freedom is preferable to the predictable violence an acquittal might bring. If so, they think WRONG. To do so would be to cave in our Republic to mob rule, and acceptance of violence as a way to define our culture. Facts and procedures at trial should have determined the verdict, not the political landscape. Pandering to evil NEVER leads to a better world, just ask Mr. Neville Chamberlain’s countrymen.

IF the Chauvin trial is overturned on appeal due to the rhetoric of Yellow Journalists, Mad Max, Sleepy Joe, and the Demoncrats, any violence that ensues will be laid squarely at their feet.

Aside from the damage done to the Republic that we’ve spent so much time, money, and blood preserving, building, and refining over the years, the sheer divisiveness promulgated by this kind of rhetoric delays the time when reasonable reform can be made. It’s damaging and regrettable when an “activist” or “journalist” makes such heinous comments but these words from elected officials are blatantly incompetent or criminal and especially egregious.

Police brutality and incompetence exist; as well as prosecutorial misconduct, governmental apathy, and, to some extent, systematic racism. We must eliminate or minimize these things to the extent possible. We can only do so effectively, however, through healthy debate and reasoned legislation. Rioting and misguided politicians hinder this process.

Facebook Court

Facebook Court

I have a wonderful suggestion for (not my) President Biden, Camel-a, and the Demoncrats. Let’s turn the criminal justice system over to Zuckerberg and the Facebook Narrative Preservationists. We could get rid of all the pesky logic and intellectual constraints and get quickly to the emotionally charged verdict that supports the concept of revenge (aka Justice).

Under this system, known as Facebook Narrative, any event which caused harm or offense would be subject to scrutiny by a hoard of charismatic idiots who care not a whit for truth, justice, or the American Way. The hoard would pick a side and pile on until the “guilty” party is eviscerated.

A culprit may be tried only upon proper indictment. Anyone with access to a keyboard and the internet would be authorized to indict a “suspect” to be “held accountable” (identified for punishment prior to conviction). Such an indictment would authorize the Facebook hoard to stalk, hound, harras, and defame the suspect while his/her “trial” (aka inquisition) is underway. The family and friends of the suspect - no matter how distant their relationship - would also be subject to these pre-inquisition procedures.

Rules of Evidence

Members of the hoard who have evidence (aka unsupported, illogical, deceitful, or otherwise surreptitious opinion and innuendo) are authorized to submit such evidence with or without any claim of expertise, with or without any proof of authenticity, or with or without any actual bearing on the case, as long as such evidence fits the narrative of the hoard - no matter how vague such narrative might be.

It is permissible for written evidence to be fabricated, taken out of context, or otherwise modified from its original form as long as the final version supports the narrative. It is permissible for any visual evidence to be modified to enhance the narrative.

Any evidence submitted that does not fit the narrative shall be submitted to the Facebook censors for exclusion and will be included only if such evidence has little or no effect on the narrative.

Terminology  Conventional dictionaries shall be ignored. When used in the context of evidence, words shall be construed to mean whatever the prosecutor desires. Typically acceptable definitions are, but are not limited to:

• Justice = Revenge. That which gives the hoard the most satisfaction.
• Fairness = Victim’s Advantage. Items that serve to enhance the narrative.
• Equity = Elevating the entitlement of a victim to a level otherwise unattainable.
• Eyewitness = A person who may or may not have personally observed something and who may or may not have a clear recollection of what he/she saw or a person whose testimony is or is not credible.
• Expert Witness = A person who may or may not have any experience, education, or expertise in the subject at hand but, if not, has slept in a Holiday Inn at least once in his/her current lifetime.
• Judge = A secret computer algorithm designed to preserve the narrative, censor any conflicting evidence, and ban any person from presenting unwanted evidence - especially facts.

A trial may continue without limit of time but shall be considered concluded when ten days have elapsed without additional evidence being submitted by the hoard. At such time sentence shall be imposed by the Judge and shall be the most violent or egregious that has been proposed by the hoard during the trial. The most prominent sentencing precedent is the case of Victim vs. Grandpa.

In this case, Victim rode his dirt bike through Grandpa’s flower garden. Witnesses testified that Grandpa had a scowl on his face and demanded that Victim get off his lawn. Victim testified that he felt threatened by Grandpa and was offended by Grandpa’s use of standard English language. Victim’s mother testified that her son was a good boy and was just about to turn his life around except for gang members who provided him with the dirt bike and promised him a reward of cocaine for destroying flower beds.

The hoard decided that Grandpa should pay Victim $100,000 for pain and suffering and that Grandpa should perform 120 hours of community service.

The transfer of our criminal court system to Facebook could save millions of dollars of tax money. Of course, the State Court system would have to be federalized but that should be easy enough to do, what with all the other Demoncratic power-grabbing that’s going on, e.g.:

• Packing the Supreme Court
• Federalizing Election Laws - HR1
• Federalizing local zoning ordinances - “Infrastructure” Bill
• Federalizing parental rights - equity act
• Gun Control
• Militarization of local Police

We could use the money we save on criminal courts to fund more gender studies in Packistan and maybe study the sex habits of box turtles in Bolivia. We might even have enough left over to buy a Tesla for illegal aliens and build another Ford plant in India.

One big downside is that lots of lawyers would be out of work, but we could give them $5,000/week unemployment and still be ahead of the game. Unscrupulous, over-zealous, and incompetent prosecutors would also have to seek other sectors of the community in which to practice their deceit. 

Gun Control - circa 2021

 

Gun Control - keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to destroy something.

Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away a well-intentioned do-gooder fell off a turnip truck in front of the Democratic National Convention hall and was appointed dictator of the country. Nobody with half a brain wanted the job because of the cultural taboo against honesty in journalism - which resulted in so much libelous mud-slinging - so the FNG was drafted.

Now, after his coronation, the new dictator, Sleepy Joe, took a few days to look around and found a “problem” that he could take care of. It seems that some folks used a gun to commit crimes. Everyone agreed that something should be done about gun violence but there wasn’t a clear solution everyone could agree that would actually work.

Not being one to apply intellect to a given problem, Sleepy Joe came up with a “do something even if it’s wrong so we can at least feel good about passing a new law” solution - he demanded that everyone give up their guns.

During the debate over Sleepy Joe’s edict, a freelance journalist, surfing the internet archive one day, came across a long-overlooked history book on the subject of the 18th and 21st amendments to the country’s constitution.  It seems that alcohol had once been outlawed in an effort to eliminate the detrimental effects of its abuse. This journalist reported on this story, and the fact that the country had adopted the 21st amendment (which repealed the 18th amendment) when it found that the alcohol ban actually caused more crime, with more violence, than it prevented. The journalist was mocked, labeled as deplorable, and arrested by Sleepy Joe’s thought police.

Another fringe-media reporter dug up and published some historical information on a “War on Drugs” waged with great fanfare and at a high cost without much success. “Just say no” didn’t work and throwing thousands of urban youths in jail didn’t even slow down the cartels which earned billions of dollars flaunting the government’s effort to enforce the laws. Eventually, one of the targeted substances, marijuana - which drew the most attention of the drug cops - was removed from the prohibited list. This journalist was also mocked, labeled as deplorable, and arrested by Sleepy Joe’s thought police.

The new gun laws didn’t even reduce gun crime, much less eliminate it because evil persons don’t respect gun laws. They did, however, prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and stories started filtering out about armed thugs and gangs stealing, beating, and raping - despite the mainstream media’s attempts to hide and lie about it. Eventually, law-abiding citizens were forced to become de-facto criminals when they obtained black-market weapons to defend themselves and were even sent to jail for possession of firearms used in defense of their homes and families. 

Sleepy Joe pushed his country onto a slippery slope by stealthily taking disarmament one step at a time - baby steps designed to carve off a portion of the resistance one group at a time. He assumed that the skeet shooters won’t care about AR-15s. He assumed that hunters wouldn’t care about high-capacity magazines, He assumed that naive gun owners wouldn’t know that registration leads to confiscation. “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”

My right to self-defense is more important than your desire to pass impotent, feel-good legislation. I have little power beyond my one vote at the ballot box but I can speak out so here it is. Don't give me the chance to tell you "I told you so."

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

Feel-Good Politics

 For some reason, elected officials seem to believe that they have to “do something” to justify their existence. When there is a REAL need to do something and the “something” is a realistic remedy for the situation, they are correct. When the need is insignificant or imagined and/or the “something” is, as we say in the aviation community “all flap and no throttle”, doing nothing is a much better solution - one that avoids the all-to-common “unintended consequences”.

One remembers with glee the Clinton years when the Democrats held the White House and the Republicans held the Congress.  Bill Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich. Legislative production came to a halt and our society blossomed both socially and economically. We have a great Constitution and plenty of laws, and we have a Supreme Court to interpret those laws onto new situations that arise. Our country is actually better off when the politicians restrict themselves to peddling flap-doodle and rocket oil instead of rearranging the deck chairs.

Of course, some problems arise that legitimately need attention. Real politicians are useful in that regard but must restrain themselves from flying off the handle. Simple solutions are not usually the right answer to complex problems. In fact, those simple solutions frequently exacerbate the problem they’re intended to solve or, more dangerously, create bigger problems without solving anything.

Once upon a time, our society perceived a problem with alcohol abuse. The politicians responded with the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition), which was ratified on January 16, 1919. America responded with the “Roaring 20s”, which spawned organized crime, and, many would say, an increase in moral decay. This disastrous experiment came to an end in 1933 with its repeal by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Prohibition is a perfect example of “Feel Good Politics”. Alcohol abuse is, inarguably, something that society and government should seek to reduce or eliminate. It has a dramatic negative effect on family life and mayhem on our highways. The simple solution was to eliminate alcohol. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Today’s politicians even seem to understand that. The politicians of 1919 saw a simple solution and it made them feel good to DO SOMETHING about alcohol abuse. It didn’t work and, more importantly, it caused more and bigger problems.

The “War on Drugs” is a current example of politicians ignoring the incompetence of their ancestors. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

Politicians have grave responsibilities when enacting new legislation. First, a determination needs to be made that the proposed solution is for a significant problem. Now, all problems are significant for someone. Hot coffee, for example, spilled in the lap of a driver is a problem for the driver; but common sense - or some other less pervasive remedy - seems to be a better solution for the rest of us than burdensome Federal Legislation. Solutions to problems affecting Virginia residents only should be addressed by Virginia politicians and taxes instead of nationwide. National Defense is, of course, a Federal issue but local law enforcement should be a local issue. Just because the Federal politicians CAN, e.g., find a legal loophole to spend Federal tax monies to help San Francisco’s police force doesn’t mean they should. Every local government covets federal handouts but the distant taxpayer bears an unreasonable burden.

Proposed legislation needs to address the REAL problem(s) it seeks to solve. A law that provides research funding for “Sex Lives of Gay Alpacas” should not be included in a COVID-19 relief package. Politicians “trade” votes with each other all the time for things like this and they shouldn’t. This practice gives rise to the very real need for Line Item Veto.

Politicians need to give more thought to the possibility of unintentional consequences. It’s easy to dismiss a prediction of dire events when one is focused on the success of a proposal or enamored with pride of authorship. This is excusable in personal situations but must not pervade when one is responsible to affected constituents. Would prohibition have been enacted if its ratifiers had considered the rise of Al Capone and/or the inefficacy of the ban? Crime statistics proved that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on the atrocities it was intended to prevent. It did, however, deprive law-abiding citizens of their choice of tools to implement self-defense protocols, eliminated jobs, and unnecessarily limited the inalienable rights of American Citizens.

We’ve lived for years under laws that require new handguns sold to be provided with a spent cartridge casing to help law enforcement identify the weapon if used in a crime. NOT ONE case has been prosecuted with that evidence. A totally useless piece of ineffective “feel-good” legislation.

When politicians today want to reduce gun violence I’m all for it - until I hear that the proposed method will arguably do nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals and that it will eliminate my choices for recreation and self-defense. I might be willing to listen to a proposal that would limit me to a 6-shot revolver, bolt action rifle, and double-barrel shotgun if I could be convinced that the legislation would REALLY prevent criminals from obtaining today’s guns. I haven’t heard one of those yet.

The charismatic idiots who tell us “reasonable gun control” will eliminate mass shootings are spitting in the faces of those who grieve the loss of loved ones because they propose ill-conceived and obfuscatory solutions that do not realistically address the problem. They shirk their duty by taking the easy way out instead of doing the work we hired them to do - finding real solutions. And it’s not just that the politicians are shirking their duty; they are actually fueling the fire when they enable criminal activity by not finding ways to curb it or requiring enforcement of existing law. When we arrest the wrong culprit we allow, and in fact encourage, the real one to continue the atrocity.

I don’t have the answers. I’ve hired politicians to find them. So far they haven’t but I understand this is a complex and difficult problem. That doesn’t, however, excuse them for kicking the can down the road while feeling good along the way. I keep my guns locked up and safe from children. I’ve passed numerous background checks and am inarguably unlikely to commit a gun crime. None of my guns have EVER jumped up and fired themselves - even the ones I carry with me every day.  Why should I be punished with the loss of inalienable rights just to placate some feel-good politician or left-wing control freak?

I’m a law-abiding US citizen and believe strongly in the voluntary rule of law. Not having lived through it, I can’t say what I would have done when Paul Revere came riding through town in 1775. On the other hand, I’m not unaware that more and more people today believe their personal freedoms are being increasingly threatened by the left-wing politicians who apparently don’t understand just how narrow is their popularity margin. I won’t fire the first shot but I’m pretty sure which side I’ll fight for. God help us if they push too far too fast.

Appeasement

 Arthur Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. He is best known for his foreign policy of appeasement in dealing with Nazi Germany. Although a stronger policy may not have prevented Nazi aggression it can easily be argued that appeasement emboldened and strengthened Hitler into a much more formidable enemy than otherwise; one which took far more effort to defeat than would have been the case.

Of course, the recently-spawned “Woke” culture in today’s America is so intent on anesthetizing itself against anything that offends it, tearing down historical reminders and criticizing the speakers of an inconvenient truth, that any lesson we might have learned from Mr. Chamberlain’s history is certainly lost to them. Their arrogant ignorance is an affront to civilized society.

It seems we have in modern America a reincarnation of Chamberlain’s misguided philosophy.  Many of our State and local politicians have adopted a policy of appeasing the current lawless groups, and it is emboldening those groups to serve up a vast buffet of anarchy and treason. Policemen are ordered to ignore all but the most violent criminals and even then their actions are hobbled by appeasement orders and they are afraid to confront the criminals for fear of official reprisal. There is so much inaccurate and blatantly malicious indictment of Police Officers in general that the sheer volume of it spawns an inaccurate perception of guilt.

Even in the rare instance where a perpetrator is rightfully arrested, bail and incarceration are immediately forgiven. Violent acts that were once considered egregious are brushed aside today as “peaceful protest” by the modern-day Chamberlain culture. Somehow, the looting and destruction of property are permissible if they are associated with a proximate cry for “social justice.”  Somehow the law-abiding shopowner, whether he be white, red, yellow, or even black, is fair game to be a scapegoat for terrorists who wear the mantle of Chamberlain Immunity.

When strong cases are brought to the justice system today, with ample solid evidence, they are dismissed by District Attorneys. In doing so these Chamberlain puppets are disrespecting the law enforcement officers who work with them in the system, voters who elected them to enforce the law, the property owners who depend on them for protection, the rule of law, and society in general.  Malfeasance of this nature is not a criminal offense but it should be.

At the tip of this iceberg of excrement are the Governors, Mayors, and City Council Members who tolerate and encourage the attempts of terrorists to dismantle the American Dream. They are either charismatic idiots or accomplices.  Either way, they don’t deserve to, and should not continue to hold public office.

In the final analysis, however, a cartoon character from the last century penned by Walt Kelley said it best: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We elected these people or allowed their election by our apathy and we are now reaping what we have sown. I’m thankful I’m old enough to be unlikely to see the final outcome of today’s stupidity and apathy. Recent presidential polls indicate that I’ve seen America at the best it ever will be. I hope they’re wrong.

A True American Hero

I had lunch recently with a good friend who is a retired police officer.  He had a long and satisfying career with the police department of a major American city, with his last assignment before normal retirement as a member of its Internal Affairs (IAD) unit. He started, naturally, as a uniformed patrol officer and was promoted along the way to Detective in the criminal investigations division and sexual assault unit before finishing with a few years in IAD.  Over the years of our friendship, he's told me a few stories about his experiences in the various phases of his career and all have been interesting but not extremely out of the ordinary, I suppose, for a big city cop. This story was different.

Let me give you a little bit of my perspective on law enforcement in general before I tell you this story.  I neither love nor hate cops.  I believe that the vast majority of LEOs diligently follow the rules and ethics of their profession and well serve the communities in which they are employed.  I believe that almost all of the deficiencies we see in police activities these days are rooted in the system under which LEOs work; not in their individual demeanor.  In other words, we "citizens/voters/taxpayers" have not demanded (and agreed to pay for) that our police departments operate under the best possible protocols. We taxpayers are therefore at fault, in my opinion, for almost all of the things we dislike about our law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, the things we most admire about the system result mostly from talented individuals making "silk purses" out of the "sow's ears" we give them to work with.

That being said, I believe there are basically three kinds of cops. One kind is the "bad cop" who performs criminal acts and gets away with them because of his position, who covers up for his bad cop buddy out of a misguided sense of loyalty, or the overzealous cop who mistreats citizens because of his "us vs. them" mentality.  Another kind of cop is the guy who is completely honest and ethical, does his job exactly as he's been trained and adheres to the letter AND spirit of all the department's rules. He believes that serving the community is "Job 1." The third kind of cop is a True American Hero.  He goes beyond the requirements of the job in every facet - work ethic, attitude, selflessness, and maintenance of a higher set of standards than is required. His morality and honesty are beyond reproach.

On any given police force there are very few, in my opinion, of the bad cops and even fewer True American Heros. The vast majority of LEOs are the "regular joes" who earn every dollar of their pay and deserve our gratitude for a job well done. They deserve our support and every piece of help we can give them to succeed in their mission. This story is about one of the third group, whom we cannot possibly reward adequately for their service.

Out of modesty, my friend would shun any notoriety this story might bring, so I'll assign a fictitious name. Let's call him Chad.

During his time as a Detective in the sexual assault unit, Chad once investigated a rape case. The victim identified a perpetrator who was then arrested and indicted for the crime.  During preparation for the trial, Chad interviewed the victim again to confirm the details of the crime for use by the prosecutor in presenting the case in court. During this routine interview, Chad almost passed over but did come to notice one minor discrepancy in the victim's recollection of the events. He didn't doubt the sincerity nor veracity of the victim, nor the pertinent facts she had provided about the case, but her demeanor left him with a very slight, nagging doubt about whether she had made a positively correct identification of the perpetrator.

In the normal course of events, Chad revealed his doubts to the prosecutor and suggested further investigation into the identity of the perpetrator.  He was told that a suspect was in custody, had been indicted, and would stand trial on schedule based on the information already assembled unless a more positive different identity could be established.  Chad then requested from his supervisor assignment to pursue the identity question and was told that the department was satisfied with the information on hand and that he was free to investigate further but it would have to be "on his own time."

Chad's sense of justice could not let the possibility of a mistaken identity go unchallenged, so he dedicated his off duty hours to further investigation. Eventually, another suspect was revealed and the victim confirmed the second person as the correct assailant. She had made an honest mistake in her first identification and, when presented with the second option, readily affirmed the correct choice. With this new information, the prosecutor changed the case and the real bad guy went to prison.

Chad did not pack up his briefcase and head home when told that the case was "good enough" against the innocent man. Chad continued to look for justice even though he had to spend his own off-duty time to find it. Chad corrected a mistake in the system by applying his expertise in evaluating the validity of a seemingly credible identification and then pursuing his uncertainty without a preconceived conclusion. He found the real bad guy.

It's not enough that we credit Chad for preventing the conviction of an innocent man, although that is obviously of enormous importance; for it is our society in general, and the taxpayers of the city he worked for, that benefits from Chad's insistence that justice prevails instead of injustice being inflicted. What's more important to society is that, once brought to light, the true perpetrator was found to be a serial rapist who had victimized several women in the past, and probably would have continued his reign of terror had not Chad persisted in his quest for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." When the system makes an error, it is compounded by leaving the real "bad guy" on the streets.

These days Chad's enjoying his retirement, spending time with his family and friends, living a mundane life pursuing his hobbies, and complaining about aches, pains, and politics.  If you pass him in the aisle of the sporting good store you won't notice the big red S on his T-shirt and his cape will be well hidden.  He is, nevertheless, the modern incarnation of Superman and I just wish there were more like him among us.  Thank you for your service, Chad.

The Battle of Athens

Some politicians blatantly advocate the elimination of our freedom to keep and bear arms. Others obfuscate this desire by framing their arguments to ignore the overarching reason our forefathers installed the Second Amendment in the first place - preserving our ability to resist government tyranny. Some Second Amendment supporters may even question the probability that modern American government could become tyrannical enough to require armed disobedience. We don’t have to turn back all that many pages in the history books, however, to learn just how prescient our forefathers really were.

On the heels of World War II America enjoyed its victory over tyranny in Europe and the Far East while preparing itself for a long cold war against Communism. The lives of its people began to transition back from wartime to peacetime and they celebrated liberty and freedom. Most of them did, anyway, but In 1946 tyranny had become rampant in McMinn County, Tennessee. It had taken hold despite the cries for help of its citizens to the State of Tennessee and the Federal Government. Eventually, the tyrants went too far and armed citizens were able to restore liberty with the help of veterans just returned from the war.

Read the facts about The Battle of Athens for yourself.

Wikipedia - Battle of Athens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

American Heritage

https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.

Enforce Existing Laws

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was recently quoted on CNN: "Our officers deserve to be protected and they don't deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets. It's disgusting and we got to do something about it ... quickly."

He’s right on that point, but that isn’t all the Mayor had to say about the recent shooting. He went on to blame the NRA, among others, for the situation where a convicted bad guy was able to literally wage war against local police. The Mayor failed to recognize that this particular alleged perpetrator is a convicted felon who possessed weapons illegally and who already could (should) have been incarcerated for numerous weapons violations - laws already on the books. The Mayor didn’t want to take responsibility for any part of the government’s failure to enforce existing law. He doesn’t seem to understand that the enactment of more laws for criminals to ignore won’t keep his police officers, or the public, safe.

The Mayor wants me to give up my ability to defend myself and my family in exchange for some more “feel-good legislation” that probably won’t even be enforced anyway. We have plenty of reasonable gun laws on the books already.  Aggressive enforcement of those laws might even make a difference in reducing gun violence.  Let’s enforce the laws we already have to the extent possible before we determine that more are necessary.

Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.

Knee-Jerk Legislation

And so it begins …  In the wake of recent violence, politicians have renewed their predictable hue and cry: “We must do something about gun violence.” Instead of proposing meaningful solutions to the problem, however, the tired old notion of disarming law-abiding citizens is once again trotted forth. Somehow, they reason, despite all the historical statistics to the contrary and all the unenthusiastically enforced laws already on the books, this disarmament will save lives.  Never mind those lives lost due to an inability to legitimately defend hearth and home.

We are told that “if we save just one innocent child’s life in the process” it is justifiable that the rest of us give up our rights.  As superficially alluring as that argument is, it is flawed. Our history records a plethora of conflicts in which American blood was shed in the effort to preserve our freedom.  American blood was shed to ensure freedom from slavery. American blood was shed to stop Nazi genocide. American blood was shed in the preservation of our rights as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. Should we now repudiate the validity of all that bloodshed by passing laws forged solely from knee-jerk emotions; laws that are predictably ineffective?

When laws are enacted that everyone knows have little or no chance of being meaningful, the politicians are not only inflicting a horrible hoax on their constituents but are disrespecting the lives given by countless American soldiers throughout our history; lives given to protect our liberty and way of life. The misguided process also distracts us from finding meaningful solutions.

Those who would give up liberty in search of security shall have neither.

KingRAT

Yellow Journalism

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Yellow journalism is the use of lurid features and sensationalized news in newspaper publishing to attract readers and increase circulation.” When the title of an article bears little connection to its content or when exaggeration colors the facts, readers can be tempted to consume bovine excrement veiled (sometimes even thinly) as legitimate items of interest.

In our complex society, where media competes fiercely for the limited attention of its consumers, yellow journalism enhances the possibility that an article will get some attention.  Writers frequently expound on subjects about which they have little or no knowledge and masquerade as experts when they are little more than charismatic idiots. Even when they are not purposefully trying to deceive readers they succumb to the temptation of trying to build their reputation into something undeserved. There was once a time when journalists adhered to a professional standard that abhorred yellow journalism.  Sadly, that time seems to have passed.

Also, consumers are not entirely blameless victims of this sad state of affairs. The timeless Latin phrase, Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) applies to media consumption more so these days than ever.  We readily drink the Koolaid of fake and/or sensationalized news with a penchant and participate in its spread with enthusiasm.  Who hasn’t “shared,” “retweeted” or otherwise repeated a sensational story only to find out that it is false or extremely loosely based in fact.

The “Fourth Estate” was once a powerful leg in the foundation of our freedom by standing ready to expose inappropriate behavior in government and society. Editorial opinions were once labeled clearly as such but today are paraded as front-page news even when facts need to be twisted to support the contrived opinion. With the demise of professional integrity among the media, however, whether perpetrated by its insiders or encouraged by an apathetic consumer, our society suffers and we lose the ability to retain the moral fiber that made America great.  If we recognize that we cannot legislate morality amongst media players, we can at least become more informed and responsible consumers.  In the words of the immortal Pogo; “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

KingRAT

The U. S. Constitution

The United States Constitution is a document that spells out how our Federal government should operate and the rules by which the various States are bound together. Each state has agreed to this arrangement, under which some of its own rules of governance are superseded by those spelled out in the U. S. Constitution.  The U. S. Constitution enumerates those powers bestowed on the Federal Government and further states that all rights not specifically enumerated shall remain within the purview of the States.

Over the years some have come to view the U. S. Constitution as a document that bestows rights on the people.  Instead, however, it, more importantly, serves to limit the power of the Federal Government; a distinction which is subtle but very important. These rights were never the property of the Federal Government to bestow but were the birthright of every American -  dating back to the Magna Carta - and memorialized in the Declaration of Independence as our rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

An individual’s right to self-defense - his right to life - is nowhere denied nor abridged by the U. S. Constitution and, in fact, the U. S. Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting so as to limit, undermine, or encroach upon (infringe) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. Together, the individual right of Americans to self-defense (inalienable) and the prohibition of government interference with keeping and bearing arms are concepts important enough for all of us to take very seriously.

Even if “gun control” is the wish of the majority, these basic tenents override those wishes when it is recognized that the rights of a minority must be preserved.  Self-defense is a basic human right.  “Shall not be infringed” gives an individual the right to exercise that right with a semi-automatic, high capacity, firearm.

High Capacity Magazines

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Kill Katie? - Justifiable Homocide?

One of the primary reasons used by mothers (yes, they're mothers even before their child is born) to justify having an abortion is the serious malformation of their prenatal child. Science hasn't yet learned to discover all abnormal prenatal conditions but that part of medical knowledge is advancing rapidly and many congenital defects are known before birth. One day, we'll be able to tell ahead of time exactly how "normal" a child will be when it is born.

Until recently I was about to buy into the idea that a seriously malformed fetus might be better off, along with its parents, not to be exposed to the pain and expense of radical medical treatment necessary to save the life of this unfortunate hypothetical child. Go ahead, I thought, add this one to the list of conditions where abortion becomes "justifiable homicide." Then I met Katie.

Katie was born with several internal organs that didn't form properly. Her health never was good from day 1 but she struggled for life and hung on. Katie also had something else going against her: parents and family who could not or would not assume the responsibility of caring for her extreme needs and gave her up to the State for care. I don't know why Katie's mother didn't elect to have an abortion and I don't know if Katie's defects could have been diagnosed prior to birth but none of that matters. Under the "malformed fetus justification" of many pro-choice advocates, Katie surely could have been killed before birth and those folks would have felt like they had done nothing wrong.

They would have, however, prevented the world from knowing Katie, and that would have been a great loss. Katie got some help from a magnificent charitable organization and has overcome her defects to the point that her prognosis is very good for a long and productive life. Nowadays Katie brings untold joy to her adoptive family, she gives deep satisfaction to those who work for the charity that saved her life, her story touches the lives of so many in very beneficial ways. My crystal ball doesn't tell me if Katie is going to grow up one day and find a cure for cancer or discover a way to run cars on water, but the things she's given lots of us already outweigh the cost of the care society has provided.

It doesn't seem right to me that lots of kids like Katie never have a chance to shine their light on this struggling society of ours. Our path to Nirvana is going to be longer and harder if we keep killing Katie.

Animal Farm - Bulls, Bears, & Pigs

Homo Sapiens is a remarkably adaptable species. When confronted with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, we usually find a way to deal with them and get on with our journey toward nirvana. Even in the pursuit of stupidity some of us find ways to circumvent the wisdom of the ages to plod on toward infamy. Take the financial markets, for instance.

The road to wealth is littered with the corpses of those who did not learn of, or would not heed the lessons learned by the corpses they have passed along the way. While most folks would not take over the controls of an airplane in mid-flight because of their self-acknowleged lack of education or experience in piloting, they readily accept the Captain's seat to pilot their own savings portfolios - with sometimes disasterous results. The more intelligent of this group hire themselves a qualified co-pilot but fail to give the helper a breathalyzer test before take-off.

An otherwise educated, experienced, and competent pilot will probably not do a good job of driving the airplane if he's drunk. In the case of a financial co-pilot - drunk with ignorance, arrogance, lack of ethics, greed, etc. The really polite, well dressed, charismatic "talking head" behind the desk in the hiring interview may be a classic "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" enigma. When the flight becomes turbulent, this co-pilot will be either little help or he will offer advice that aggravates the emergency.

One of the little chuncks of Wisdom of the Ages in the equity markets is:

"Bulls get rich and Bears get rich but Pigs get slaughtered."

For those to whom the meaning is not obvious: Bulls are those who believe the stock market will rise in value and make investment decisions accordingly; which result in profits. Bears are investors who believe the markets will decline and make investments to profit from this situation. Pigs, on the other hand let greed (a pervasive and dangerous human emotion) guide their investment decisions and, while they get fat sometimes, they eventually wind up as bacon on someone's breakfast table.

Bulls are not always correct in their estimate of the financial climate but they use tried and true methods to avoid a disaster that might result from their erroneous estimates. Bears use similar methods to weather an unexpected storm. Like a drunk pilot, greed (the alcohol of the investment world) has clouded the Pig's judgement to the point he ignores the "Wisdom of the Ages."

Be a Bull sometimes. Become a Bear when necessary. If you don't know exactly how to fly that flight plan, hire a sober co-pilot. Never get greedy or deal with greedy people.

Somewhere in the Middle

We need each other. Now, I'm no anthropologist; and I don't even play one on TV, but my observations of humanity indicate that there are very few real hermits among homo sapiens. Aside from the fact that I need all sorts of others to furnish me food, electricity, gasoline, and toys, I need others around - at least from time to time - with whom to share my thoughts. The necessity of living together - not just in the same house but in the same city, state, country, or planet - dictates the establishment of rules and the responsibility to abide by them.

Prohibitions against homocide, theft, and other actions deemed by our society to be counterproductive to the goals of living together harmoneously. I don't believe a significant number of human respondants would answer positively to the question: "Should we legalize all forms of homocide." I don't believe very many of us would agree that it's ok to steal a motorcycle even from someone we don't know. As our society evolves and becomes seemingly more complicated, however, the definitions of, for instance, homocide and theft become less clear.

If someone were to intentionally kill a 2 year-old child they would have committed homocide and would have violated society's rules. The debate rages on in our society, however, when a mother and her doctor conspire to end the life of an unborn child.

Abortion is just one of the many ethical debates in which our society is engaged. There are adamant proponents on both sides of the issue, who claim to hold the "proper" opinion and who believe a single rule should be established for all in society to embrace. Until the debate is concluded, those with strong opinions are injured each time an abortion is performed or each time a mother is denied the opportunity to chose the fate of her unborn.

If there were only two sides to this issue, it would be easy to end the debate: 50% + 1 would do it and those on the "losing side" would have the obligation to abide by the wishes of the majority. As with most complicated ethical issues, however, there are at least two more "sides" to the debate. Today, the ballot would have to include a box to check for: "I don't care" and for "I can't comprehend the issue." Unfortunately, these two latter positions would probably garner a lot more than 50% + 1 of the vote and that is the reason the issue has not yet been settled.

I must confess that being in the middle of the road on this issue is comfortable. I don't have to expend a lot of mental energy defending my position and I don't have to alienate my friends who have a strong opinion one way or the other. Realizing that my silence is delaying the day when we'll get this debate behind us, I've decided to speak out and I urge all the others who are comfortable in the middle of the road to get onto one side or the other and take a few of the rocks being tossed from the opposing side. It is our obligation to help society resolve the issue.

Abortion is wrong!

If homocide is wrong, and a child becomes a human being at the moment of conception, how can we view abortion as anything less than the taking of a human life.