Terror watch lists and gun buying

Have we lost our collective minds in this nation?  This whole idea of banning people on the terrorism watch list from buying guns is beyond insane on so many levels. 

Has anybody actually looked into what it takes to get on the terrorism watch list or no-fly list (they are different).  I did.  I found a Congressional Research Service paper on the matter dated from April of last year.  It turns out, it is VERY secretive.  In fact, there are no publicly available guidelines for who ends up on the lists.  Here is a quote from the CRS report:

“The precise guidelines and particular factors the government relies on to place individuals on terrorist watchlists are not made public. The criteria for placement on the No Fly list, as well as whether a person is on the No Fly list, are considered “Sensitive Security Information” (SSI) and have not been publicly released by the federal government.”

Here’s some more Orwellian stuff to consider from the report.  When figuring out whom to put on the “no-fly” list, there are some standards that DHS follows.  They get information from various methods and agencies and compile the list.  However, that standard is fluid and can change on a whim.  Take a look:

“This standard was not mandated by statute, but was “adopted by internal Executive Branch policy and practice.” In addition, a recent district court case indicates that there is a “secret exception to the reasonable suspicion standard,” but the “nature of the exception and the reasons ... for nomination are claimed to be state secrets.””

So the executive branch can arbitrarily change the criteria of who is included on the list.  Nice. 

Now for the fun part and the real point of all of this.  In the past two years, Hillary Clinton has publicly compared the following groups to terrorists:  The NRA, the GOP and anybody who disagrees with her on the issue of abortion.  I’m not kidding on this.  Do a Bing search (google is less helpful in finding the exact references… go figure). 

So in the opinion of the woman who might be the next head of the executive branch of government, anybody who disagrees with her is on the same level as terrorists.  She will have the ability to add any of them to the terror watch list and thereby, prevent any of them from buying a gun and there is no redress. 

Does this bother my non-gun owning friends?  Is it OK to restrict the rights of Americans based upon secret lists?  Is it OK to deny any right without some form of accountability or redress?  This is scary stuff.  

Trump Should Be Liberating to Conservatives

It is a bizarre election year.  "Establishment" Republicans are at a loss right now to figure out how to deal with the fact that Trump will be the party's nominee.  Some are reluctantly getting on board.  Others are holding back and others are openly opposing him.  A few are even contemplating the asinine idea of running a third party candidate which would guarantee a Clinton victory.

I think they are missing the boat.  A Trump candidacy may not be what is best for either the party or the country, but it is a reality.  So what does a person do when reality is in conflict with what we desire?  There are a few choices, but the only one that makes any sense is to make the best of it.  Reality will not change and flailing one's arms in protest just looks pathetic.

The thing that "establishment" Republicans should consider is just how liberating this election has become.  Everybody knows Trump does not represent very many traditions of the GOP.  Trump himself and his supporters know this.  The media knows this.  The liberals even know it.  Because everybody knows it, there is no harm in embracing just those positions with which they do agree.  They can criticize his non-conservative positions and even tear him apart on those things but still endorse his candidacy.

I've been having fun with this already.  My liberal friends don't know how to handle it.  They thought they were going to get to beat me up (figuratively of course) on a number of Trump positions.  I just listened to their derision and let them rant.  When they stopped, I got to say, " You're right.  That position doesn't make any sense.  I'm still voting for him and I'll do so enthusiastically."

It takes all the wind out of their sails when I do this.  They thought they had the "gotcha" moment, but because I have never been a Trump fan, I am under no obligation to defend those things with which I disagree.

The trick is to figure out one or two things you like about Trump.  In my case, I like his position on the 2nd Amendment and I'm pretty sure he would do things to the Federal bureaucracy that just could never be done by anybody else.  That, combined with the prospect of Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices is enough for me.  Any damage he does to trade policy, foreign affairs, or anything else can be fixed later.  To me, a Trump presidency is worth it even though I think he is an egotistical buffoon.

See what I mean by liberating?  With previous GOP nominees, I felt like I had to defend their actions, words and decisions.  I don't have to do that now.  I can agree with his detractors when he does or says something stupid.  It takes away their arguments.  They are left stammering because they can't  call me a brain-dead Trumpster.  They can't argue with me because on the few issues with which I agree with him, they can't say I'm wrong.  They have no answer.

The mainstream GOP needs to figure this out quickly.  Don't defend positions that you think are wrong.  Just say he is right on enough issues to earn your vote.  The Democrats can't do the same.  They can't seriously look at Hillary and defend the outrageous levels of corruption that she brings.  They can't even point to successful policy positions that she holds because everything she has touched has turned out poorly.  Even the minimum wage issue just got pulled out from under them by Trump's flip-flop (which was idiotic by the way).

In a strange way, this might be the best thing to happen to the GOP if they embrace it.  The have had to defend the likes of Romney, McCain, Bush and Dole for a generation.  Even when each of those took positions that were clearly pandering to the mainstream media, they had to be defended.  They had to defend them when they looked foolish.  They had to defend them when they strayed from conservative principles.  There is no need for that this year.

Don't worry about defending Trump... Let Trump defend Trump.  He's pretty good at it.  Focus only upon those issues with which you do agree and let the rest roll off your back.  Whatever damage he does can be undone in the future.  The damage he would do is nothing compared to the damage Hillary would do with a couple of Supreme Court appointments and the continued damage done by the criminal levels of corruption.

Transgender and "bathrooms."

The transgender bathroom debate irritates me to no end.  What is worse is that most Facebook and Twitter discussions are little more than oversimplified platitudes that usually end with somebody being called a bigot.  Very little discussion happens.

Last week, I was tagged in such a post and the friend who tagged me ended up removing it when she realized just how offensive it could be taken (I really believe she didn't mean it to be offensive but such is the nature of FB).  The thing is, her post really got me thinking seriously about what is wrong with the entire discussion.

It strikes me that there is something desperately missing from the debate.  What is missing is any discussion of boundaries.  Obviously, a man poking a camera under a bathroom stall violates every sane human's sense of boundaries, but short of that, where are we as a society?

The next thing that struck me is that both sides in the debate are not talking about exactly the same thing.  Those who favor transgender rights tend to move the discussion to public restrooms such as at ball parks, department stores and shopping malls.  They also bring up the success of current unisex restrooms in some establishments.  The clear fallacy here is that each of these places already have a modicum of privacy such as private stalls, and in the case of unisex restrooms, there is generally an entire locked restroom available to any sex.  That's all well and good but diverts attention from real boundary discussions and ignores a number of societal norms.  Plus, there are MANY places where, due to security reasons, doors have been removed and there is very little privacy.  It also ignores the legitimate privacy concerns of many women even in the presence of private stalls.

The other side tends to focus upon schools.  I have a lot of sympathy for this but I have come to discover that this is not nearly as cut and dried as I thought it was.  If my understanding is correct (and it may be incomplete), I believe a child who "identifies" as a sex other than the one they are born with must show VERY extensive psychological counseling and get sign-offs from medical and psychological professionals that they truly suffer from a mental condition for which there is no relief.  Further, schools are being required to provide certain privacy measures even when a biological boy is allowed into the girls rooms.  A boy can't just say he feels like a girl today and walk into the wrong bathroom.

-Edit:  It turns out that my understanding was VERY wrong about this at the time of the writing.  Under two letters sent from the Obama Justice Department to every public school in the nation, it is NOT required that a transgender student demonstrate anything at all.  There was no doctor's note, psychological evaluation or anything like it.  In fact, under the directives, schools were not allowed to even ask if the student's parents were aware of the decision.  A boy could literally walk into the school office and declare that he identified as a girl and he could not be challenged, questioned nor could his parents be called.  I'm not exaggerating about this one... I have copies of the letters.

So one side is saying what's the big deal and why are you being so closed minded and the other side is saying protect the children and neither is talking about the same thing.

I want to ignore both of these for a moment and see if there are any boundaries left in this society.  Let's not talk about schools or "restrooms."  Let's talk about health clubs.  Health clubs have public restrooms, but those are also locker rooms, showers and changing rooms.  How much privacy should a woman expect in such a setting?  Who should be allowed into these areas without the cops being called?  Let's be as realistic as possible and think about the right of a woman to go about her normal daily life and figure out how much male presence is allowed in such a place.  From that's we should be able to extrapolate appropriate privacy expectations wherever the sexes are segregated for privacy reasons.

For women, at what point are you comfortable finishing your work-out and coming in to shower and get dressed to leave?  Would you be comfortable with any of the following individuals sharing the changing and shower areas of your local sport club?

1.  Any random man.
2.  A gay man.
3.  A flamboyant gay man who may be wearing feminine attire.
4.  A man with a beard and hairy back but wearing women's clothing.
5.  A clean shaven man with feminine features wearing a wig and women's clothing.
6.  A stereotypical "transvestite" with heals, stockings a wig and looking very much like Tim Curry in Rocky Horror.
7.  A transsexual who has gone through years of psychological counselling, hormone therapy and truly examined and understands the process by which their brain and body do not match in terms of gender but has not had the penis removed.
8.  Same as above but has gone the extra step of surgical alteration.
9.  None of the above

My hunch is, most women would answer 7, 8 or 9, depending upon how "liberated" and accepting they are of the transgender community.

Here is the problem though.  No matter how accepting a woman is of the transgender community, how does one distinguish between number 7 with number 5?  For that matter, if we draw any line, why is one line somehow better than another?  Isn't any line arbitrary?

It's worse than that though.  Is it really anybody's business if a transsexual has gone thought adequate levels of counselling?  It is our business if they are undergoing hormone treatments?  Is it our business if they prefer men or women?

Do you see the problem yet?  We can't set up a sliding and nebulous criteria for who may enter a women's locker room.  How do you ask about a person's motivation for desiring to use the women's locker room?  Who is responsible for determining who's reason is based upon sound medical and psychological science and who's is based upon being a pervert who wants to satisfy voyeuristic or nefarious desires?

Women should never have to forfeit their privacy or modesty if they don't want to.  Men shouldn't have to either for that matter.

This isn't about fear of sexual assault.  It has nothing to do with the so-called "rape culture" or anything else.  It is simply a matter of personal dignity of women. Some women would have no problems with changing in front of men or those in "transition" and that is their prerogative.  But is also the prerogative of other women to say no to this.

Am I missing something here?  Bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms and lounges are segregated in order to protect the dignity and privacy of both sexes.  Are we really at a point in our society where we must end modesty for all in order to satisfy the "rights" of those for whom nature (or nurture) has played the cruel joke of giving the brain one gender and the body another?  Am I the only one who thinks the most compassionate and least judgmental response is to ask that those with a penis use one room and those without use another?

No Guns in God's House

On March 5^th of this year, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will be debating a resolution to ban the carrying of guns in the churches within the diocese.  I am a lay member of this deliberative body and I will be arguing against this resolution.

For my non-Episcopalian friends, I need to start with an explanation of how our church is governed and how things work.  Every year, each Diocese (geographical area comprising a large number of parishes) holds a meeting to conduct business and set the direction for the coming year.  These are normally pretty tame events, dealing with budgets, discussions on increasing membership and sharing ideas on outreach.

There are votes on resolutions.  These are statements that are brought to the Diocese by just about anybody and they are debated and voted upon.  For the last several years, I have been watching these resolutions become more and more political and farther and farther to the left on the political spectrum.  Many of them are downright silly such as the one that called upon the church to lobby for a ban on “high impact ammunition.”  I have yet to hear exactly what that means and I bring it up to illustrate just how absurd they can be.  Most resolutions just call for the church to lend support to causes without actually forcing the individual parishes to alter their policies. 

Because my parish has stayed firmly outside of the political fray, I have been comfortable maintaining my membership.  The Episcopal method of worship, the approach to the Bible and the traditions of the church are very appealing to me and the people of my parish are just wonderful so I have been able to compartmentalize my feelings about the Diocese of Virginia and their political leanings.  My parish is very diverse politically and as such, we have chosen to just keep all politics out of the service.

This year, the Diocese of VA is doing something different.  This year, they have a resolution that forces a change in policy at all parishes within the Diocese.  Resolution 3 is listed here:  http://www.thediocese.net/Governance/AnnualCouncil/221st-Annual-Council-2016-/Resolutions/

It states that firearms will be banned at all churches within the diocese.  The only exceptions are for law enforcement purposes and animal control.  It doesn’t even offer an exemption for off-duty law enforcement personnel carrying concealed.

The resolution incorrectly characterizes VA law with regard to carrying in a place of worship.  The resolution correctly quotes the VA statue which references guns in church, but ignores how that law is applied.   Current law states that guns may not be carried in church without “good and sufficient reason.”

There is a legal opinion written by the former Attorney General that carrying for self-defense qualifies as “good and sufficient reason.”  The law is not intended to forbid legal concealed carry in a church.  It is intended to create an additional charge against anybody who brings a gun into a church to commit another crime.

It is possible however to ban guns in individual churches.  It would be done just like any other private property owner can forbid guns upon their property.  It entails asking those who are carrying to leave and if they don’t, call law enforcement and charge the person with criminal trespass.  That is the method by which the Diocese can enforce the resolution.

So what’s the big deal?  Who needs a gun in church, right?  We should be following the example of Jesus and not encourage violence, right?  Who really cares since nobody will ever notice a concealed gun anyway, right?

Let’s look at those:

Who needs a gun in church?  Hopefully, nobody.  I, like every other permit holder in VA, subjected myself to a background check and underwent a training course.  VA currently has over 420,000 permit holders and some of us have done considerably more than the bare minimum of training.  For the most part, few of us think we will ever “need” a gun for self-defense.  If I ever thought I would need a gun, I would find another place to be.  I don’t want to ever be in a gun fight and if one were inevitable and I had a choice, I sure wouldn’t bring a pistol (I’d bring a rifle and friends with more rifles).  The choice to carry a gun is to deal with things that are outside the realm of the likely.  It is a hedge against being wrong about the perceived safety of any setting. 

Ok, but what about the Christian belief system?  My view is that it would be un-Christian for me not to be armed.  This is not so much for the defense of self, but of others who are innocent.  Our Baptismal Vows call for resisting evil and striving for justice as well as respecting the dignity of every human being.  If I have the ability, training and means to defend the innocent who are in the process of being assaulted, raped, beaten or murdered, it is required of me to act with every tool and spiritual gift available to me. 

Yes, I said spiritual gift and I meant it.  I have a mindset of being my brother’s keeper.  I will defend without reservation to the limits of my training, the weak, the innocent and the oppressed.  It is what I am and is a part of the core of my being and my spiritual walk with God reinforces this.  I look at the parable of the Good Samaritan and ask myself how Jesus would have described the scene if the priest, Levite and Samaritan had witnessed the attack, rather than its aftermath.  How should they have acted in defense of the dignity and well-being of the victim? 

That is how I view my commitment to God and my fellow man.  I certainly don’t expect others to share this.  As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we are all blessed with different spiritual gifts.  This resolution that will be debated on March 5^th insinuates that my gifts are unwelcome.  More than that, I am unwelcome at the communion rail.  The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is announcing that if one chooses to be prepared to use that spiritual gift, they are unwelcome to worship in any parish in the Diocese of Virginia. 

Is it really that bad?  Since we’re talking about concealed pistols, who would know?  Couldn’t permit holders just keep quiet and carry anyway?  The answer is yes but not really.  With 420,000 permit holders in the Commonwealth, plus thousands of off-duty and retired law enforcement personnel, it is likely that few Virginia Episcopalians have not shared a communion rail with a legally armed person.  Under the language of this resolution however, they would run the risk of being found out and asked to leave under threat of a charge of criminal trespass. 

Keep in mind that permit holders are by definition, rule followers.  Were we not rule followers, we would not have bothered to get a permit in the first place. 

The bottom line here is that while this resolution may have a noble purpose of promoting a point of view that eschews all violence, it is intolerant of anybody who choses an interpretation of the Bible as something other than a call to absolute pacifism.  This intolerance is demanding all Episcopalians within the Diocese to conform to an inflexible doctrine and that is not how an open and accepting church behaves. 

We will be debating and voting upon this resolution on March 5.  I pray that reason and tolerance will win the day.  

Why an "assault rifle"

Why an “assault rifle?”

I see this question asked all the time and rarely answered in a way that makes any sense.  I’ve decided it is time to answer it, at least to my friends.  Before I do however, I’m going to explain why the question rarely gets a genuine reply.  This is going to be a long answer so grab a cup of coffee.  It takes a lot to explain the background and a few political, technical and legal issues surrounding this question.

Definition:

Let’s begin with a definition.   A true “assault rifle” is a machine gun but that’s not what politicians and the media have used for a definition so I’m going to try to describe this with the more commonly accepted features.  Features include things such as a pistol grip under the gun (which makes it more comfortable to shoot in unsupported shooting), folding or collapsing stock (making it easier to make the right size for different  shooting styles without replacing the whole stock), barrel shroud (enabling it to be handled after the barrel heats up), flash hider (shooting any gun at dusk can be blinding to the shooter and the hider helps dramatically) and they shoot low power ammunition.

Let that one sink in a bit. 

Yes, lower power ammunition.  The AR15 and AK47 shoot what is called “intermediate power” ammunition.  They are exponentially more powerful than a handgun, but far less than most hunting rifles used for deer.  This means the rifle recoils less and is easier to control.  They are suitable for small game but not for something the size of a deer.  The ammunition was designed not to kill, but to stop an opponent.  Hunters need to kill their prey as rapidly as possible, but that is not a consideration for the military.  This also means the ammunition is less expensive and because it is small, more can be carried.

What the media commonly calls and assault rifle is a semi-automatic rifle that bears a resemblance to a military rifle.  The two most common are the AR15 and AK47, although there are dozens of others.  The versions of this that can be commonly purchased in the US have two very big differences between the civilian and military versions.  The first difference is the length.  The current issue US military rifle is designated as the M4 (essentially an updated variant of the same M16 that has been in use since the late 1960’s).  The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5” which is 1.5” shorter than is legal under normal circumstances (more on this latter). 

The other difference between the military and civilian model is the fact that the military version can shoot either fully automatic or semi-automatic.  This is a dramatic difference.  A “machine gun” allows the shooter to pull the trigger and hold it down.  The gun will continue to fire until it is empty or the trigger is released.  A semi-automatic will fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled but will not send out a stream of bullets like the fully automatic one will.

Machine Guns

Now a few words about machine guns.  They have been regulated to almost complete inaccessibility since 1934 and further restricted in 1986.  If a person wants to own a machine gun, they must first find one that was built and registered before May of 1986.  They then apply to the BAFT for a tax stamp.  The application includes photos and fingerprints and the BATF conducts an extensive FBI background check which can take months to complete.  The buyer also needs to notify the chief law enforcement officer in his/her jurisdiction and pay a $200 transfer tax. Because of the 1986 law, scarcity has driven prices to astronomical levels.  A Colt M16 can easily sell for over $25,000. 

This same process also applies to rifles with a barrel shorter than 16” and to “silencers” (which are not silent by the way and are properly called suppressors).  The only difference is that short barreled rifles and suppressors were not limited in 1986 so prices are not distorted. 

This category of firearm is called an “NFA” which refers to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  NFA firearms are not common but they do exist.  To my knowledge, one has never been used in the commission of a crime.  That’s right… none.  They are a non-issue.  I bring it up to illustrate the difference between semi and fully automatic firearms and how they are regulated in this country.

Convert to fully automatic?

Many people believe it is easy to convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic.  That is completely false.  While it is true that some have been converted, the BATF has explicit regulations about this.  If a gun is to be sold in the US, it can’t be “easily” convertible.  It requires a machine shop, special tools, parts and skill and a considerable amount of time.  Converting one is a federal felony and is well beyond the skill level of most gun owners… even ones who have the tools and knowledge of how to do it.  The bottom line is, if somebody is that skilled and has access to that kind of machinery, they could just build their own gun from scratch anyway.

Definition problems:

When politicians bring up banning assault rifles, they quickly run into problems.  How does one define this category of firearm without banning everything?  That is because functionally, there is zero difference between an assault rifle and a common hunting or sporting gun.  There are some ergonomic and cosmetic differences but as far as the actual function of the gun, they are exactly the same.  Some politicians have caught on to this and attempt to make these cosmetic features the focus of their campaigns but that is truly silly.  Take for example the state of California.  They banned assault rifles by saying that anything that has an easily detachable magazine cannot have a host of features such as a pistol grip, length adjustable stock, flash hider and other cosmetic and ergonomic issues.  Gun manufacturers simply changed the design a bit to comply which makes for some ugly and non-ergonomic looking guns that still share substantial parts compatibility with the original.

Slippery slope

Now we’re at the meat of why people are reluctant to answer the “why” question.  Most of us are well aware that some politicians are not forthcoming about their real agenda.  We know that all they are doing is describing cosmetic issues.  Once those measures fail to change anything, they will claim they didn’t go far enough and start looking at functional issues.  The vast majority of handguns sold today are semi-automatic and while they don’t look scary like an AR15, they have a number of functional similarities which would certainly be a “next step” for politicians. 

Think this is a stretch?  It isn’t.  Twice during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hilary Clinton lauded England and Australia’s “mandatory  buy-back” programs.  What is a mandatory buy-back?  It is confiscation with compensation.  That is the ultimate fear of gun owners.  We don’t want the government knocking on our door to take our guns and the nominee of the Democratic Party has explicitly endorsed the idea.  In 2019, Beto O'Roarke went a step further during the debates saying "hell yes, we're going to take your guns."  Of course that would be impossible unless all guns were registered and the government knew when any guns traded hands.  Not coincidentally, these same politicians are calling for “universal background checks” which is de facto registration so you see why gun owners are less than enthusiastic.

Nobody needs one

This is what many people say when arguing against the issue.  Is it the government’s business to determine “need?”  Can they say how many wine bottles are more than you need?  Can they say how fast your car needs to be able to go?  Can they tell you how much food exceeds your needs and stop you from consuming more?  Do you need to read certain books?  Do you need to watch certain TV shows?  Who in the government gets to determine needs?  Is any of this the business of the government?  You may believe it is, but there is a pretty strong libertarian streak in this nation that thinks otherwise. 

Why own an assault rifle?

Now that you know what an assault rifle is, let’s talk about why we own them.  As you would expect, there is not a single answer to this.  I’ll cover a number of them.  You may scoff at some of these but remember that others may scoff at some of your lifestyle choices as well.  Uniformity of opinion is the antithesis of diversity so withhold judgment for a bit.

In no particular order.

Rural defense:

As a farm tool, it is handy to have one for varmints with four or two legs.  I know a person in my county who recently discovered dozens of pot plants on his land that were being cultivated by unknown persons.  It was a large enough crop to be worth a large sum of money and that farmer now carries a rifle whenever he is in the more remote portions of his property.  Criminal activity in remote areas means that land owners are on their own.

Civil unrest:

People saw what happened in the wake of the Rodney King trial.  Shop owners were on their own while rioting mobs controlled the streets.  Fergusson MO and Baltimore MD just had similar nights of mob rule.  Post-Katrina New Orleans had a long period of lawlessness where citizens had no expectation of help from law enforcement.  In these situations, an individual or family could be days or weeks with constant and immediate threats.  A good rifle and plenty of ammo is not an unreasonable thing to want and it has happened several times in recent memory.

Terrorism:

In this day and age, is it unreasonable to imagine a coordinated attack upon an urban setting?  It can happen anywhere. Paris and San Bernardino illustrate that but this level of terrorism has been a daily part of life in Israel for decades.   Any soft target is a legitimate one for terrorists.  A rifle in the trunk of a car with a “roll-out” bag (tactical vest, spare mags and tools) is again, not completely unreasonable in certain situations.  If a person were able to get to that rifle while an attack were underway, they might disrupt the terrorists.  An assault rifle would be FAR superior to anything else in this context.

TEOTWAWKI:

The End Of The World As We Know It is difficult to discuss because it smacks of paranoia and delusion.  It seems far fetched and a bit crazy to some, but both those on the left and right of the political spectrum have various theories about how this could come to pass.  By TEOTWAKI, I’m talking about the total collapse of society.  This would be characterized by little to no government control, anarchy, fighting for resources, non-existent monetary system and generalized chaos.  Think it can’t happen?  It probably wont, but I’ll give you a few examples of the thinking behind it:

-          Natural disaster on a Biblical scale (think asteroid strike, super-volcano or other sun-blocking event).

-          Climate change that leads to massive migration into areas unable to sustain it.  Scarcity of resources leads to political chaos (if Florida is submerged, can they still have senators?)

-          Rogue nation like North Korea figures out how to deliver a massive EMP over the US which would destroy nearly every electronic device including the power grid.  This would cause years of darkness in the US.

-          Rogue hackers figure out how to destroy the power grid in the US.

-          The monetary system collapses from its own corruption or from attacks from anarchists or a combination of the two.

-          A drug resistant virus or bacteria wipes out a significant portion of the population.

-          Population growth of certain populations reaches critical mass, leading to the end of our democratic republic. 

-          Income inequality leads to civil war.

Are any of these likely?  Who knows?  Probably not but does it really hurt to have an AR15 and a stack of magazines and ammo?  It is the TEOTWAWKI reason that the 2^nd Amendment really addresses.  It was not for hunting or “sporting purposes.”  It was about giving individuals the ability to establish order out of disorder.

Zombies:

Every wonder why zombies became such a thing over the last few years?  It is because most people don’t want to get into a discussion about TEOTWAWKI and the 2^nd Amendment.  So when people ask “why do you own an assault rifle?”  it became a quick answer that could be delivered with a sly grin. 

Sporting use:

The fastest growing shooting sport is something called “action shooting” which involves a lot of ammo, movement and engaging multiple targets.  It is big business and a lot of fun.  Every weekend, one can find 3 gun matches that require the use of a rifle, pistol and shotgun.  It is loud, fast and exciting.  The AR15 dominates this style of competitive shooting.

Coyote hunters tend to favor the AR15 platform as well.  The gun can be made to be very accurate and the bullets are small.  Recoil is mild and allows for quick follow-up shots. 

Final thoughts:

I go to church with a woman who owns a Porsche.  Her car is capable of exceeding every speed limit in this nation.  It is also capable of killing her and lots of people along the way.  It is expensive and I would never own a car like that.  She enjoys it.  She takes it to the track and beats the snot out of it.  It puts a big grin on her face.  She doesn’t need it but who’s business is that?  Even though her car was purpose designed to do things that should never be done on a public street, she is a law abiding American and I support her right to own and use it.  In spite of the fact that cars kill vastly more Americans every year than do guns, she should continue to have the right to enjoy it, just as I and every other law-abiding American should have the choice to exercise our rights under the 2^nd Amendment. 

Syrian Refugees

Those of you who know me, know that I am not a political moderate.  I am a conservative and I am generally annoyed by those who think they look smart when they criticize both political parties.  It usually means they are failing to take a real position themselves. 

Right now however, I am really irritated by both parties on how they are handling the Syrian refugee crisis.  Both parties are using this issue in ways that are just evil.  I have yet to see a single article from either side that that admits the key to understanding the real crux of this problem.

So here’s the deal.  As far as the US is concerned, there is not one single refugee crisis.  There are two and both sides are avoiding talking about this because there is political hay to be made.  The first refugee problem is the hundreds of thousands of people who have fled to refugee camps or are living in areas adjacent to Syria.  The second problem is the human wave that is invading Europe.  They are related but very different problems.

I’m not even going to get into how these two problems are related except to say that I get it… the refugee camps are not nice places.  They are horrible and people are living in deplorable conditions.  This is causing large numbers of them to figure out ways to get to Europe which causes the problem of the current invasion. 

The thing is, that part of the problem isn’t even on the radar at the moment.  In the US, we are debating about how to resettle 10,000 refugees per year in our country and that is what is being treated as a political game by the Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans:

The Republicans are preying upon xenophobia to stir up the electorate.  They point to the human wave of Muslims flooding unchecked into Europe and connect it to the terrorist attacks in Paris.  On that score, they are actually correct, but then they take it a step farther by attempting to keep out all refugees.  That ignores the process by which a refugee can legally make his/her way to the US.  In order for a refugee to get here, they have to be registered in a UN run camp.  It is a very long process, taking up to 2 years and includes numerous interviews, checks and interrogations.  I’ve spoken to people who have undergone this process and it is meant to be difficult. 

People who pass this vetting process are not even guaranteed to be sent to the US.  They don’t have a choice on where to go but if they have relatives in the US, they have a higher chance of ending up here. 

The bottom line is, this would be a very dumb process for a jihadist to go through in order to gain entry into the US.  There are much easier ways to make entry.  A forged passport and a flight to just about any Central American country gets them into position to walk into the US unchecked.  There is just no reason for a terrorist to sit in a refugee camp for 2 years in hopes that they would not be found out during a background check if they want to kill Americans in America.

Democrats:

The Democrats are quite happy to let the GOP demagogue this issue because they think they can use it to further their false-meme of the “GOP War on Woman.”  Because so many of the refugees are women and children, it is easy to paint opponents of refugee resettlement as cold-hearted white guys.  But that’s not the real reason the Democrats are taking this position.  The “war on women” is just a happy coincidence for them.  No, the reason they don’t want to talk about the real issue is because they don’t want you to notice that what is happening in Europe is very similar to what they have supported happening on the Southern US border.

Here is where the refugee issue gets political.  The Democrats have been trying to legitimize the human wave that has been invading the US for decades.  If they were to point out that the refugees we are trying to resettle here are not part of the unchecked masses that arrive daily in Europe by boat, train and foot, somebody might notice that the two issues are related.  They know they are guilty of allowing unvetted, unchecked and potentially dangerous people into this country.  They are even now trying to make the invasion permanent in spite of all evidence of how that can destroy a culture. 

If the GOP were smart (and I wish they were), they would embrace bringing in refugees from the camps.  They would make a big deal about creating a distinction between those refugees and the ones who are making the trek into Europe.  They wouldn’t even have to forward ideas on how to relieve the pressure on Europe (that would take way too much work and explanation).  All they need to do is compare the Muslin invasion to the invasion we have experienced through our border with Mexico. 

They would have the high moral ground.  We are a moral nation and we have a history of taking in genuine refugees.  We have done it for Vietnamese, Cubans, Somalis and Haitians among others.  We do it when it is clear that those refugees are persecuted and in fear for their lives.  Considering that well over 1 million refugees are in camps in Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, it would seem a pretty small gesture to welcome 10,000 true refugees to our shores.  Do that at the same time we get serious about closing our own borders and enforcing immigration laws. 

In short, reward those who are going about this legally and shut out those who don’t.  Until we get serious about border security, we are very vulnerable to foreign terrorists on our own soil.  The refugee population is not the threat… our own immigration policy should be the focus.

Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

What I Learned About Christmas from a Muslim

Several years ago, I worked at a car dealership in Northern VA.  It was a large dealership and we had more than 100 employees and native born American’s were not a majority.  It was the picture of diversity.  One day during Ramadan, I walked by the wash bay and saw that a number of Afghan employees were about to share their fast breaking meal.  One saw me walk by and invited me to join them.  He knew I wasn’t Muslim, but he wanted me to share in his tradition.  I felt very honored and even though I had just eaten, I joined them for some bread and lamb. 

It was the absolute essence of inclusion.  They included me into their culture.

This got me thinking about Christmas and the use of the term “Merry Christmas.”  At the time of the above incident, I wasn’t a Christian.  I was agnostic (at best) but I treasured the Christmas traditions that go far beyond religious meaning.  Even when you remove Christ from Christmas, that day is still a valuable part of the American experience.  It is about families, hope, love and remembering to care for others.  It is about giving.  It is when wars are put on hold.  It is when we forgo work in order to be with family.  It is when children marvel at the wonders their parents worked so hard to make happen.  We even manage to put politics aside, even if just for a few hours.  It is a wonderful time of the year.

And all of that is before you add in the miracle of the birth of our Savior.  Being a Christian makes it all the more wondrous and special. 

So as an American, I am excited for Christmas.  I want to share it with others.  I will wish others a Merry Christmas because to do otherwise would be very selfish.  “Merry Christmas” is a term of inclusion, not exclusion.  Like my Muslim friend, I want others to share in my traditions.  “Happy Holidays” misses the point.  I’m not celebrating a generic holiday.  I’m celebrating Christmas.  It is my wish to include others  in this.  It would be rude of me to not include people from outside my culture.

If you are Jewish, I would be honored if you replied “and a Happy Hanukkah to you!”  If you have a celebration that is important to your culture, let me know about it.  I’d love to hear about it and I would love to be included.  If you don’t celebrate anything, just say “thanks.”  You don’t have to be Christian for me to wish you all the best of the season I celebrate.