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.