Feature

Bill and Melinda Gates are getting divorced. Was it the wealth, the pressure or, after almost 28 years of marriage, did they simply pay off their mortgage and were ready to move on? We know about a dozen couples who have either separated or have gotten divorced after having been married somewhere between 20 and 30 years. Coincidently, the couples have about the same amount of time invested in their marriage as they do their home mortgages. This brings up an interesting concept called the “Mortgage Marriage” with the basic concept being that maybe a marriage should only last as long as a home mortgage? Paying off a 20, 25 or 30-year mortgage takes patience, dedication and resilience much like being in a marriage for that amount of time. For a variety of sensible reasons, not the least of which is simply that couple’s compatibility, chemistry and tolerance for each other often expires much the same way a declining home loan balance does over time.   

“How did so many issues become such a big deal in the last two years that weren’t a big deal the first 25 years?” David – Separated after 27 years

The Mortgage Marriage contract is essentially a contract between two people that can be renewed or terminated at the end of a predetermined term. The union and contract ideally will start as love, but over time, it’s not uncommon for feelings to change, as do priorities, interests, responsibilities, goals, and the vision of the future. If, after the kids have become adults, should the love, intimacy and compatibility die out why not choose to pass on the Option to Extend and part as friends? Couples should be grateful for the 20 – 30 years they spent together, the family they raised and the home that they built, but still be willing to move on to the possibility of finding new love if they so desire. Granted, some couples are happy when their mortgage is paid off as they go into their twilight years having less financial obligation and more time together. Loving couples can certainly elect to extend the mortgage marriage contract indefinitely should they choose. On the other hand, couples could also choose to split the emotional and financial equity at the end of that term and amicably go their separate ways. Imagine that dream home you never really found or purchased; marriage can be somewhat the same. If you know in your heart that you didn’t marry the love of your life who’s to say he or she isn’t out there? Maybe you should keep looking. To quote the band Old Dominion, “Life is short, make it sweet”.

“My ex-husband and I are better friends now than when we were married. People change so much over time, especially married people.” Carol – divorced after 31 years of marriage.

I have heard, but not yet found, a statistic saying more couples today are divorcing after 25-30 years of marriage then between years 1 and 5. In the experiences of many friends, they all claim the first five years were relatively easy, but the later years have proven difficult. Years 1 – 5 are usually spent in a blissful stage of new experiences which includes establishing an emotional and financial foundation, building a couple friend base, putting a home together, traveling, developing a work/live routine and starting a family. Sadly, years 25 – 30 can be spent in an emotional isolation. One or both parties are often lonely and stressed living in what is often a joyless and sexless relationship if partners have drifted apart. It’s sad to think the only thing holding a couple together at that stage in life are their financial investments or not wanting to alter a perceived blissful family appearance.

From “A Year-by-Year Guide to Your Risk of Divorce” by Lauren Vinopal, Most couples now marry in their 30s, which means year 20 puts them in their 50s. The idea of divorcing in your 50s has become so common that, much like the seven-year itch, it now has its own name: gray divorce. Susan Brown of Bowling Green State University coined the term in response to the divorce rate of adults over 50 doubling between 1990 and 2010. “People don’t necessarily want to be married for all those years anymore,” Meyer says. Alternatively, this divorce spike may be coming from men and women who maintained a traditional marriage and family at the expense of their own happiness — and finally reached a breaking point. “A lot of people say, I’ve been unhappy for years, I don’t want to spend my last year’s unhappy,” Kessler says .

Marriage and Family Therapist, Paul P. says, “The negative characteristics of a long union include impatience, sarcasm, and criticism. Once one or both parties see marriage as a grind there’s usually a host of other problems, not the least of which are intimacy issues. In short, after 20 – 30 years of marriage, too much togetherness can lead to new life stresses, unresolved issues from the past, an inability or breakdown in healthy self-reflection and losing the joy of marriage. Many people call this “falling out of love”. Simple terms would describe this as personal journey into our heads away from our hearts. One can often harbor unresolved pain that does not find the path of forgiveness. With this happening, over time we start to see our life partner as a source of pain and defect and no longer the person we fell in love with so many years ago.”

The Adjustable Rate Mortgage Marriage
There’s a book out called The Five-Year Marriage by Ann Marie Kelly. http://www.fiveyearmarriage.com/ which is for anyone that thinks forever or “until death do us part” is impractical. The Adjustable Rate Mortgage Marriage would allow newlyweds to sign 5-10 year contracts which could be renewed at their expiration or you would be free to go anywhere you want with anyone you wanted with no prejudice or stigma. You’re obviously going to pay a higher interest rate for a more flexible term in this type of marriage mortgage. https://jasaala.wordpress.com/ja-saala-mind-foot/5-year-marriage-contract/.

Refinancing
Refinancing is a common mortgage phrase, but in this case it would apply to one of the partner’s finding they care about someone new while still technically in their marriage. It usually starts innocently enough, when two unhappy or unsatisfied individuals connect in some meaningful way. It could be with a friend, neighbor or business associate who shares common interests such as music, humor, sports or politics. Chemistry between to people usually stirs passion and desire. Refinancing romances can obviously create complications, but as the kids say, “the heart wants what the heart wants” and affairs very often lead to a second chance at love. Country music artist Shania Twain’s husband, Mutt Lange, fell in love with her married best friend. Once the divorces were finalized, not only did Mutt and Marie-Anne marry, but Shania eventually married Marie-Anne’s ex-husband, Frederick.

“I don’t think men and woman were meant to stay together forever. It’s not natural. There’s just too much underlying tension in most long marriages.” John – Divorced after 29 years of marriage.

The theme song for the Marriage Mortgage commercials would be “Love Done Gone” by country artist Billy Currington. The chorus goes a little something like this,
Like the dogwood blossoms in a late spring rain
All the disappearin’ bubbles in a glass of champagne
Like money in a slot machine
Don’t know what happened to you and me
It ain’t nothin’ we ever said or ever did wrong
It’s just love done gone

I’m not saying some couples are perfectly happy together in a 20, 25, 30 year or longer marriage, but more probably stay together because it’s just easier than the alternative.  It takes courage to move on and face uncertainly, especially where there are kids, grandkids, a home, investments, finances and a variety of other things to consider. Some men and woman are lucky enough to find new love, but others aren’t and that can be a terribly lonely prospect. However, if everyone bought into the 20-30 year mortgage marriage idea, there might be a whole new attitude and world of possibilities without the pain and suffering an ugly divorce can create. Is your mortgage/marriage getting close to its maturity date?

Today is the first day, of the rest of my life. At least it seems that way. I should trademark that term, because now that California is opened-up and we don’t have to wear our masks in public anymore we’re free to start living again. I feel like that guy from the musical Phantom of the Opera who wore a mask because, a, well, I didn’t actually see Phanton, but I know the lead character had a mask…. or a hat and at the end of singing all those long songs, didn’t he take his mask off?

The mask that the “Phantom,” Erik, wears over his face symbolizes his vulnerability and the injustice he suffers from, as he is forced to hide his face because it causes too much horror in other people. Although the mask gives Erik some control over his life, as it allows him to decide when to reveal his real face, it also signals that he has no control over one crucial factor: other people’s reactions.

OK, now that I’ve read the plot of Phantom, it does kind of relate to the mask we’ve been wearing the last year. Was I the only one who felt vulnerable injustice in the COVID state we’ve been living in the past 15 months? I’m no GQ model, anymore, and while my mask wasn’t hiding ugliness, I did feel if I took my mask off in public I couldn’t control other people’s reactions. Mask shaming was real. I think we can all agree that the Corona Virus was ugly, like Erik, and yet we’ve all been living life as Erik. Well today, June 15, 2021 is the day when when Governor Gavin Newsome says we can reveal our faces once again unless…………..

I want to go to the bank. Wells Fargo, Band of America, Chase, Citibank and even credit unions (which are like junior banks). All of these financial institutions would still prefer I wear a mask when coming into their establishment to ask for some of my money. If I don’t like it I can keep my money at home at the Under My Mattress Savings & Loan.

I want to go the post office. NO, the USPS still wants me to wear a mask when I come in to mail a letter, package or purchase a sheet of Hello Kitty stamps. I also get the pleasure of waiting in a long line.  

I want to go to the grocery store. Well, Safeway, Lucky, Draeger’s, Andronicos, Whole Foods all kinda want me to still wear a mask when I come into shop for my Fruit Loops, Pringles, turkey burgers and hummus. 7-Eleven might be a little looser if I just need a Slurpee.

I want to go to out to eat. Unless I’m mistaken, most of my favorite restaurants, such as Olive Garden, Five Guys, Panda Express and the Taco Bell Cantina, all are still expecting me to “mask up” if I want to come in and order a little something when I get hangry.  

I want to go into an office building. I work in an office building and yes, I am expected to wear my mask into the lobby, hallways and restroom, but I do take it off when I “do my business” in stall #2. I also take my mask off when I go into my suite. That’s pretty sweet because at least I can now go into the office and stop working from home in my pajamas and participating on a million Zoom calls.

I want to go to a sporting event. Knowing that I watch football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey and LAX with my eyes, I don’t have to cover our eyes, just my nose and mouth. That is until I get hungry and want to dig into a stadium dog, nachos and a cold beer…..for $89.00

I want to attend a concert. Knowing that I listen with my ears, my ears don’t have to be covered, just my nose and mouth. At least until I get hungry and want to dig into a stadium dog, nachos and a cold beer…..for $99.00. Apparently, they mark the prices up at concerts.

I want to visit the zoo. Well the giraffes and camels are requesting their I wear my mask to avoid that dreaded human to animal COVID transmission. It seems that new Delta variant is making everyone a little nervous.

I want to go to a movie. However, with the Top Gun movie coming out on July 2^nd, I’m prepared to double mask and wear a face shield if I that’s what it takes to see that long awaited sequel to the 1986 hit starring Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer. Who could forget the epic line delivered my Cruise’s character Maverick, “I got a need for speed”?

I want to travel. No, wait for it, I do still have to wear a mask on an airplane per the website instructions from Southwest, United, American, Delta, Aloha, etc. However, travel restrictions might be a little looser on Spirit and Frontier, but you also might need to act as the flight attendant or actually fly the plane. 

I want to gamble or enjoy the entertaining music at a strip club in Las Vegas. Apparently craps dealers and strippers, excuse me, exotic dancers, both still want more separation from the customer.

Come to think of it, maybe Phantom of the Opera was the wrong mask reference. Maybe I was thinking of the movie, The Mask staring Jim Carrey where a hapless, everyday bank clerk finds a magical mask that transforms him into The Mask, a cartoonish, mischievous, genuinely insane, green-faced troublemaker with the ability to alter himself and his surroundings at will who later on becomes a crimefighter. Come to think of it, I was starting to feel a little cartoonish, mischievous and genuinely insane wearing my mask. Lets hope this pandemic is essentially over and we can all get back to life as we knew it, maskles

Many years ago, way back in the 1950s in fact, even before Erich Von Däniken had ever written one of his books, my father would occasionally philosophize with me regarding the possibility of highly evolved civilizations before ours. So, you understand, my father was a pretty serious guy, He was not prone to flights of fancy. So, when he started to philosophize, I tried to listen, especially when he spoke about ancient civilizations and UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) since I had, myself seen one of those when I was but twelve years old, in of all places, France. To be specific, my sighting happened in 1954 in Algrange, Moselle, France, on the plateau which runs parallel to the little town of Algrange.

If you would like to read the whole story, you can still get a copy of my book on Amazon, entitled “DISPLACED”. Whether you want to get the book and read it, is up to you.

So anyway, in the dim, distant past of the 1950s, my father told me that he believed that some very highly developed civilizations had existed on our planet and they had achieved great levels of knowledge, technologically and culturally, but for some reason, they had disappeared, due to either some calamitous event or even possibly due to some major conflict with some galactic opponent. In other words, some sort of interstellar, nuclear conflict. Planet Earth, as a result was destroyed. Well, not the planet itself, but let’s just say that living conditions on the surface of planet Earth became unfavorable for the Humans residing here at the time, for quite a long time.

Millenia passed and Earth started to recover. So, the powers to be, at the time in our galaxy, perhaps the “Enlightened Federation of the Galaxy” or EFG, decided to test conditions for living creatures and discovered that Earth needed help in recovering. So, they sent some enormous spaceships loaded with some really, really big animals, such as Dinosaurs to assist in the recovery process. Why Dinosaurs, you may ask. Well, they are exceptionally large, for one thing. They leave massive footprints, sort of like those ginormous bulldozers used to basically reshape areas of our planet. In addition, those dinosaurs clean up the mess left behind by some major intergalactic mishap, such as a nuclear war or a great flood (which would leave behind a lot of dead fish), by devouring whatever living or dead, was left behind and their excrement would in turn fertilize the surface of the planet and help her recover, with brand new vegetation. It is a sort of a terraforming method, using biological entities. If you think about it, it is rather clever of the EFG. They don’t have to gather up all the tools used in the terraforming process and pack them all back up in the enormous spaceships. They simply leave them all behind. The dinosaurs then, slowly die out or, are destroyed through some ‘planned destruction plan’ by the EFG, leaving their bodies to decompose and leaving planet Earth with an enormous supply of oil, which after thousands or perhaps millions of years becomes available for drilling. Of course, the oil that will be drilled and refined, will become the fuel that will be used to power the twentieth century vehicles, we humans will come up with, before we eventually evolve into the Space age.

I hope you’re getting where I am going with this idea. The beings who run the EFG, are not stupid. They have been at it for possibly millions and millions of years, which is why, we are constantly discovering that planet earth has had Technologically Advanced Civilizations (TAC) for possibly many millions of years, that have disappeared, and reappeared on various occasions. Which is also why, over the past hundred or more years, the more digging archeologists and geologists have done, the more evidence has been dug up as proof, that there may have been, numerous “Technologically Advanced Worlds” before our own.

Think about it. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that Mainstream Academia and even Religion has such a difficult time accepting the fact that the Egyptians were NOT the first advanced civilization. I still remember back in 1958, when our history teacher, Mr. Johnson, told us that before the Egyptians, ‘WE’ Humans were running around in loin cloths, hanging out in trees or caves, eating bananas, trying to stay out of the way of predatory creatures who wanted us for their meals. Then, about a thousand years or so down the road, we climbed out of our tree and decided, “Hmm, I think we should build some of them there, darn Pyramids!”

Really? Can you even understand the mathematical knowledge you must possess to be able to not only plan a pyramid, which may appear to be a simply shaped structure but is in fact an overly complex puzzle, but to be able to manufacture the extremely high precision technological tools needed to make those pyramids a reality.

For instance, the more than a square mile plateau that the Giza pyramids are built upon, had been levelled to within a couple of inches of 100% flat. This could not have been done by ‘banana chomping, loin cloth attired’ unshaved tree-dwellers, with not even the equivalent of a first-grade mathematical education! Ask an engineer and tool designer like Christopher Dunn if some stone age, banana eating tree-dweller, with absolutely no education of any kind, could have built those pyramids, and he would laugh you out of the room.  Dunn has actually taken his calipers and other engineering and measuring tools to Giza and has proven that, not only was there a very high level of mathematical knowledge involved in the design and construction of the pyramids but, that highly technical, power-driven tools were actually used in the processing and manufacture of the enormous stone blocks used in the construction of said pyramids. Oh, and by the way, since no soot was ever discovered on the ceilings of the numerous hallways and corridors throughout the pyramids, there is a good possibility that even electricity was involved in lighting the interior while work was being done, but electricity might have even powered the high-speed tools used in the cutting and shaping of the stone blocks.

In other words: sophisticated, highly technological planning, design and construction methods had been used to erect those Giza pyramids and, it is very possible that they were built not some five thousand years ago but, possibly as much as 12,000 years ago, according to Dr. Robert Schoch, and possibly as far back as maybe 20 to 25,000 years ago, according to me.

The pyramids are not the only anomalous megalithic structures on planet Earth. Every continent on our planet has mysterious megalithic structures that defy the current or established dating and construction methods explanation given by mainstream sources.

Now, think about it. Our planet is full of clues that some of us look at and examine and decide that they are truly proof that the current occupants of our planet are not the only highly advanced civilization that has occupied this space. All of the megalithic structures found everywhere, around our planet simply indicate that some pretty advanced humans, using rather sophisticated tools and methods were able to build them. Now, the question becomes, where did they (those ancient humans) acquire the knowledge to develop the planning, the tools, and methods to accomplish those tasks? Did they simply evolve and learn on their own, or were they taught by superior beings, who already had the knowledge and had actually relocated those early humans here, to planet Earth?

Some Native American traditions tell us of someone called ‘Sky Woman’ falling to Earth who is then tasked with caring for nature. Sounds rather simplistic and nice. Then, there are folks who passionately believe that all humans do is harm nature and if we (humans) simply disappeared off of the face of the planet earth, she (Earth) would be a very happy camper. You make what you wish out of that narrow-minded thinking. If these simplistic folks would study a bit of astronomy, they would realize that as much as they believe that we humans are the destroyers of Earth, before we were deposited here, on a rather safe planet, out there in the cosmos, for millions of years, celestial bodies rampaged around, destroying each other, until finally, some order was established, and our solar system became a finely tuned operation. How do these simple-minded folks think that the asteroid belt came about? Do they even know that Earth is constantly in danger of being bombarded by giant asteroids, which would certainly cause a lot more damage than us ‘mistreating the environment’. Wake up people, we were transplanted on planet Earth for a reason.

And although ‘Sky Woman’ falling to earth to tend the environment, is a nice tale, it is about as accurate as the story of Adam and Eve, which I have touched upon in a previous article. Put simply, Adam and Eve are planted in the Garden of Eden, some sort of ‘Testing Biosphere’ to see if they could take care of things, mingle with the animals and to not get too nosy about the ways of the garden and the ways of the flesh. When they inadvertently peek into the book of knowledge, egged on by a snaky troublemaker, they get kicked out and told to find their own lodgings. Since they now are cognizant of the ways of the flesh, they create two children, both boys. One’s name is Cain and the other, Abel. The following is an excerpt from the Bible, via Wikipedia.

“In the biblical Book of Genesis, Cain and Abel are the first two sons of Adam and Eve. Cain, the firstborn, was a farmer, and his brother Abel was a shepherd. The brothers made sacrifices to God, each of his own produce, but God favored Abel’s sacrifice instead of Cain’s. Cain then murdered Abel, whereupon God punished Cain by condemning him to a life of wandering. Cain then dwelt in the land of Nod, where he built a city and fathered the line of descendants beginning with Enoch”.

So, here is where it becomes curiouser and curiouser. If Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and had two sons. One son kills the other and is sent on his way to fend for himself. How did he find a city in the land of Nod and start dating and have a family. Where exactly did the people who built Nod, come from? Could they possibly have been ‘relocated’ by some EFG Operatives, to planet earth, just like several other “Ethnically’ varied groups of humans, all over Earth?

For instance, people of Japan, China, India, Europe, Egypt, Sumer, the Caucasus, Innuits as well as Native Americans and various island people, all have legends of superior, beings from the sky, in other words, extraterrestrial (flying beings, gods, angels) transporting them here to planet earth from somewhere else. Many of these so-called legends are very similar, although not exactly the same. These heavenly beings (Extraterrestrials) always flew in on some sort of fiery chariots (Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods), fire-spewing dragons or flaming birds. Were these attributes described by the observers, simply descriptions of technologically advanced, flying transportation vehicles? I would say so. So why have mainstream academics always poopooed the possibility that these ancient people might have been describing actual events, and not legends or dreams, as best as they could, with the extremely limited vocabulary in terms of technological vehicles, available to them at the time? This is something that I will never understand.

Moving right along. There is enough evidence available today, to start seeing and believing that Extraterrestrial powers have been meddling in the affairs of ‘us’ earthlings, for what seems like millennia, possibly even eons. And guess what, the US Government has finally admitted its interest in Unidentified Flying Objects and the entities that pilot them, simply because, they could no longer keep it a secret that, US Military pilots have had encounters with them (UFOs), for quite a long time, possibly since the Roswell Incident and perhaps even before. I have seen video footage on ‘Ancient Aliens’ shows, of the US aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz being shadowed by a whole fleet of UFOs for several days, just to then vanish under the surface of the Pacific somewhere around Catalina Island. Navy vessels on the East Coast of the United States have had similar experiences. So, how come, we are just now hearing and seeing evidence of these occurrences? Well guess what?

The US Congress is finally starting to ask questions regarding our ‘Intelligence Agencies” inability to determine whether these violators of the United States’ air space, are friends or foe. It has not been generally publicized but, a report is expected to be released in the near future, according to a number of notices that I have received via email. Perhaps, these disclosures may force mainstream academia to pay closer attention to things that zip around in our skies and, more closely and honestly scrutinize thousands of years old, perhaps even millions of years old evidence being dug up almost daily that appear to indicate the actuality of extraterrestrial visitations of our planet for eons, at times immeasurable even in GTS (Geologic Time Scale). And to the diggers of ancient, buried evidence, I say “Do not keep hiding evidence that you cannot explain, in the cellars of museums and out of sight of the general public, that may just be interested in what has been dug up. And for Pete’s sake, give the evidence a more honest appraisal!”

More to come in future articles. The truth ‘is’ really out there. We just have to make an effort to keep certain operatives from hiding it from the rest of us!

An actress starring in the latest episode of Star Wars is fired for public comments she made. Walt Disney movies are pulled from streaming services and the shelves. Rides at Disneyland and at Disneyworld are either changed to accommodate politically correct nostrums or simply ended.[1]

And it isn’t just the Disney corporation that is now finding racism and white supremacy everywhere on their television programs, movies, and rides—no, now even Dr. Seuss is a target![1] This is extremely ironic as Dr. Seuss (Theodore Giesel) lived his life – unlike Walt Disney – as a diehard leftist. In the animated television cartoon of Horton Hears a Who, Dr. Seuss drew the obnoxious Wickersham Brothers as stand-ins for Senator Joseph McCarthy, who represented anti-communism. And it was Dr. Seuss himself who participated in the early 1940s’ version of “cancel culture,” when he pejoratively labeled the anti-interventionist Colonel Charles Lindbergh as an “isolationist,” and anti-Semitic for being one of the leaders of AMERICA FIRST. Colonel Lindbergh’s greatest crime, according to Doctor Seuss, were his attempts to keep the United States out of World War Two prior to Pearl Harbor.

So, what do these recent events prove? In the end the revolution always eats its own. It also proves that if you look hard enough you can find anything.[2] Dr. Seuss still has his defenders though.[3]

You might ask yourself why grown adults should worry about Star Wars, children’s cartoons, amusement parks, and fairy tales.[4] Many adults don’t even want children to be exposed to fairy tales as they are considered to be “silly” and not pragmatic for preparing children for adulthood. Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s classic response was, “The objection to fairy stories is that they tell children there are dragons. But children have always known there are dragons. Fairy stories tell children that dragons can be killed.”

There is a reason certain groups push children into being terrified of man-made climate change, their local police (whom they’re told are systematically racist), and why they promote Drag Queen Story Hour. There is a reason systematic efforts are made to input hatred into young minds and the American system.[5]

It is simply easier to advance false narratives, disordered ethics, and hatred for the customs and traditions of their parents, grandparents, and country when they are still young. If there is any children’s art, entertainment, literature, or popular culture that perpetuates the archaic notion to those young minds that the American system, the American people, and the American Way are worthy of respect and love, then the Social Justice Warriors and Cancel Crusaders are on a mission to destroy those customs and traditions.

These advocates of a “new world order,” will target anything – from a Star Wars character to a Disney cartoon to a book by Dr. Seuss – and ensure it is removed, replaced, and CANCELLED.

The response of wise parents who are intelligent enough to discern what is happening through the smoke and fog of “inclusion” and “equity,” should not have a bunker-like mentality or withdraw from the culture at large. In the end this helps no one. And the Disney corporation and other “woke” companies would be wise to remember that they need families more than families need them.

A parallel culture where children are raised to still love their God, family, and country, respect the sacrifices of their ancestors, our founding documents, and the flag, and a love for genuine freedom of thought, speech, and faith is what is needed now more than ever.

During the pandemic, many parents woke-up to what had been happening to their children while they were away at work or even at home by themselves during the day. Teaching their children at home was a revelation to many how the education system itself has been deceiving them over the decades in terms of the “quality” education their children were receiving. I personally know five families now who have chosen to home school their children in the wake of the pandemic of this past year. Another family will be sending their children to a private school.

During the pandemic, parents taught their children to be more self-reliant, independent, and to use their imagination rather than relying on gadgets and electronic devices to stimulate their brains. Children were introduced to classic, folk, and popular music from more sane eras of our shared history; they read books, watched movies–even movies in BLACK AND WHITE– and played board games with their siblings and parents.

I’m told that in addition to visiting amusement parks and zoos, more families will be taking their children to museums now too. We are fortunate here in the East Bay to have such a wonderful variety—from the Lindsay Wildlife Museum in Walnut Creek, to the USS HORNET in Alameda, to the Museum of the Old West at the Behring Museum in Blackhawk/Danville—these sites, and others, are not places used to instill propaganda, they are there to educate.

This return to American traditions and values, combined with having other family activities–like attending the annual celebration of Memorial Day at the All-Wars Memorial and the Independence Day Parade (both in Danville)—can be our answer to the corporate culture that believes it can dictate what we can and can be entertained by.

By rejecting “wokeness,” and showing a streak of independence to corporate America, we will remind them that they need us more than we need them.

And perhaps by doing so, maybe even Star Wars will get better again!

---

---

[1] The Wokeiest Place on Earth – Arkhaven Site (arkhavencomics.com)

[2] Can You Find All 17 Instances Of Racism On This Page From A Dr. Seuss Book? | The Babylon Bee

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpcW3clYs2w

[4] The Cancellation Of Dr. Seuss Should Disturb You, Because You’re Next (thefederalist.com)

[5] California Ethnic Studies Programs: Merchants of Revolution (city-journal.org)

In recent weeks, several mass shootings in our country have once again propelled the issue of gun violence into the headlines, forcing Americans to reconsider our nation’s unique, delicate balance between safety and liberty. Advocates for greater controls and limitations on firearms are frustrated, as they cannot understand why so many lawmakers, “fail to act.” At the same time, gun-rights advocates’ distrust of government grows, as they react in ways diametrically opposed to greater restrictions on firearms, buying more guns and ammunition.

If there is an answer to the problem of gun violence in America, what is it? Is it possible to stop gun violence and preserve our constitutional rights?

The answers to these questions largely depend upon what American’s understand about the issue, and what we value most. Aside from the political rhetoric there are facts to consider—facts about what causes violent behavior; statistical facts; facts about the Constitution and our rights; firearm facts; and of course, we also have the record of world history in which various levels of gun control have existed for decades.  

That said, is it reasonable to say that before we can make informed, intelligent decisions, we ought to make sure we understand these facts and their implications with regards to both safety and liberty?

Government Reaction to the Worst Mass Shooting of All   

Shortly after the horrendous 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, much discussion ensued about the root cause of the tragedy. While guns and the availability of high-capacity magazines were included in the banter, so too was the apparent lack of access to appropriate mental health care and the influence of pervasive violence in movies and video games in contributing to such crimes.

As days passed the narrative about Newtown changed, narrowing upon one area alone—guns. The Sandy Hook shooting had once again ignited the debate about violence and guns in America, only this time, the tone and passion of the debate was elevated as never before because twenty of the twenty-seven victims were innocent, young children.

Within hours of the shooting, President Obama pledged to do all he could to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again, acting almost immediately by appointing Vice President Joe Biden to head a “Gun Violence Task Force.” The task force—comprised of cabinet officials and government agency chiefs, including Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Education Duncan, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius, city and state officials, as well as representatives from the NRA, sportsmen groups, and the firearms industry—was charged by the President to make specific recommendations on the best ways to prevent gun violence.

One month after the December 14, 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the task force completed its mission and delivered its recommendations to President Obama. Two days later, on January 16, 2013, determined to solve “our nation’s gun violence problem,” President Obama announced a pro-active campaign against gun violence, signing an Executive Order containing twenty-three specific actions aimed at fulfilling his stated goals. Of the twenty-three actions, four concerned mental health. The remaining nineteen were about adding new or expanding existing gun “control” measures.

“All I know is, more guns isn’t the answer.”

When NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne La Pierre, recommended that retired or active police officers be assigned to guard schools, his words fell upon deaf ears. Members of the media labeled La Pierre a “kook,” saying he was out-of-touch with mainstream America. His ideas were summarily dismissed without serious consideration. Similar ideas were also presented by some members of the Biden task force, but they were also promptly rejected without regard.

Rejecting the notion of protecting children with armed guards, civic leaders like then Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, echoed the mantra: “more guns is not the answer.”

The solution, they said, was tighter gun controls, with bans on “assault weapons,” high-capacity magazines, stringent background checks, and registration for all guns and gun owners. In one speech, then Governor Cuomo stated that, “no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.” He then implemented an order that gun magazines in New York hold no more than seven rounds.

Then Governor Malloy of Connecticut said that “everybody with a right mind agrees that we don’t need thirty round clips,” and referring to the Sandy Hook tragedy specifically, he said, “This is a wake-up call about who we are and what we are.” He then recommended a ban on assault weapons, saying that “these instruments are for killing.” When asked if armed guards might have helped protect the children at Sandy Hook, he replied, “more guns is not the answer.”

And so it was that after what was supposed to be an open and thorough examination by President Obama’s task force—one that could have sought fact-based solutions based upon logic and geared toward effective ways to protect our children—the President instead chose to take the easier, politically-motivated route, to do what he felt he could best “sell” to the American people. As evidenced by the President’s twenty-three executive actions, he concluded that the root cause of the Sandy Hook shootings, and indeed, all gun-related violence is…guns.

According to the President and others, the only way to prevent the type of terrible crime that occurred in Newtown is to further regulate and restrict law-abiding citizens’ use of guns.

What is the Problem?

I am not a hunter but I have hunted. When I was 14 my brother-in law offered to take me pheasant hunting. Before going I had to take an NRA Hunter’s Safety Course and learn the basics of handling firearms. Sometime later I hunted for the first time and had my first experience of firing a gun. It was a 20-gauge shotgun and I immediately learned that guns are powerful, potentially dangerous things that must be respected. I hunted for pheasant and ducks a few more times and then a friend introduced me to handguns where I learned to shoot with a pair of .22 caliber Colt revolvers (cowboy–style six-shooters).

While I enjoyed the experience of shooting guns, every mentor and teacher impressed upon me that guns were not toys, they were serious tools to be cared for and respected because their misuse could lead to tragedy and careless handling could end life—even one’s own. Owning or using a gun is in many ways like owning or driving a car—both require that the user be responsible, both demand respect, and both can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

Beyond those early years, much of my familiarity with firearms and the need of them came by way of family and friends who worked in law enforcement. My brother-in-law was a police officer and later Sheriff, my younger brother was a Special Agent for the Department of Homeland Security, and another close friend is a retired police officer.

My wife grew up around guns. Her father, Horton, was a competitive marksman who made and shot his own black powder, muzzle-loader rifles. As a young girl, she would accompany her father to the shooting range and to black-powder events. Hort’s muskets are works of art and the framed dual targets that we own, each with five, dead-center bulls-eye shots from 50 yards, bear witness to his exceptional skill.

Today, my son and I enjoy shooting and collecting firearms of all types, be it pistols or rifles, and we are both comfortable around them, as is my wife. And while my wife is not a gun enthusiast, per se, she knows how to shoot and re-load, and at 25 yards can put the lead of a .357 magnum on paper as well as anyone.

My point in telling you about my family’s familiarity with guns is this: It is my observation that people with little or no gun experience tend to fear guns. Because they fear guns, they have no knowledge about firearms and are ignorant when it comes to their use and purpose. Then, as an extension of that fear and ignorance, they are uninformed or misinformed about the laws regarding guns and are especially so when it comes to their understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

This fear and ignorance problem applies both to ordinary citizens and to political leaders, and because of that, average citizens often make assumptions and judgments about important matters concerning guns, based upon erroneous information provided by ignorant and fearful politicians.

The Second Amendment: What it Says & Why it Exists

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Debates about the efficacy or applicability of the Second Amendment arise whenever some madman uses a gun for evil. Some claim that the right to bear arms applies only to members of an organized militia. Some claim that it is an outdated, unnecessary part of the U.S. Constitution that should be repealed. Others explain that the right to bear arms, while guaranteed by the Constitution, is acceptable only so long as it allows individuals the ability to protect themselves (within certain limitations of force), or to hunt wildlife. Even the most recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the right to bear arms reflect the idea that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is for personal protection.

But none of these are accurate. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution as a logical extension of, and intended as the ultimate guarantor of, everything else contained within the Constitution. The men who crafted our Constitution did so with their recent experience in mind of having cast off, by force of arms, what they considered a tyrannical government.

While the personal protection of each individual is contained within its meaning, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the American people shall always have the means to resist, and yes, even overthrow if necessary, a government that has become oppressive or unjust. In fact, by their own words, the framers thought it not only a right that American citizens bear arms, but a duty:

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. –Thomas Jefferson

The only way that a well-regulated Militia can form is when armed citizens are available to form it. The founding fathers clearly understood that they were not granting us the right to keep and bear arms, they were affirming that as free people, Americans already had that right, and the federal government must recognize and respect it.

CLAIM: “The Founding Fathers only had muskets, not semi-automatic rifles. We don’t need weapons of war on our streets.”

I have heard it said that because the framers only used flintlock or percussion, single shot muskets, that the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. But it is precisely because our founding fathers only describe arms in general terms that we know their intention was to forever ensure that Americans would have the right to keep and bear appropriate arms required of the day; arms with adequate and proportional force required to combat any that might be used by an oppressive or tyrannical government. In other words, whatever arms the government has, so too to the people also have the right to keep and bear.

CLAIM: Government shall maintain order and determine who shall be free.

I find it troubling, and so should every American, that the same elected representatives who seem ever tempted to ignore that portion of the Second Amendment that states “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” feel justified in levying taxes from those same people, in order to arm “rebels” in other nations. While many in elected office, including some presidents, seem to have reservations about trusting American citizens with semi-automatic weapons, they felt it appropriate that rebel forces in Libya be armed with all manner of fully automatic and other lethal weapons in order to overthrow Gaddafi.

From South America to Afghanistan, our current and past Presidents have, on many occasions, justified funding or directly arming rag-tag bands of “freedom fighters,” in the name of, “protecting America’s interests,” while at the same time distrusting their own citizens with an assumption that they can disregard that portion of the Constitution intended, in part, to moderate the power of the Federal Government.

History is replete with governments having instituted gun control in order to ensure “safety” for their citizens. The Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Turkey and others have all enacted various gun control measures during periods of the 20th Century. The result? Over 50 million people were exterminated and countless millions more were, or are still, oppressed or enslaved. Tyrants are tyrants and even they know that their greatest opposition comes from an armed citizenry.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. – Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

Our founders warned us about the delicate balance between liberty and security, and about the necessity of maintaining a solid counterbalance to hold in check any power that sought to dominate or rule by force.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. –Benjamin Franklin

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.—Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

CLAIM: “You have nothing to fear. We will never confiscate your guns.”

Many Americans believe this—mostly those who do not own guns. In several speeches, President Obama claimed to support the right of individuals to own guns for sport or personal protection (of course you may not protect your family with automatic, high-capacity weapons while his family is surrounded by them). Yet, even before he became President, he espoused his views about limitations (infringement) of the Second Amendment:

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.–Barack Obama, April 16, 2008, Democratic Primary Debate, Philadelphia

It is important to note the qualification and limitation in his statement. There is never a mention (for fear of suggestion, perhaps?) that citizens be armed in order to be able to form a militia. Obama clearly believed that the government has the power and authority to severely regulate the conditions under which citizens may be armed.

Most Americans believe that government officials would never dare confiscate individual’s firearms, but they would be wrong in that belief. It has already happened in recent times and can easily happen again, given the “severity” of the crisis at hand.

On September 8, 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass issued a city-wide order to local police, National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. “No one will be able to be armed,” Compass said. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

Citizens’ firearms were seized without warrant and by force. Homes were raided and in some cases, excessive force was used to take guns, with no compensation offered to the gun’s owners. The rights of New Orleans’ citizens were violated by the government for fifteen days, until September 23, 2005.

Military Style Assault Weapons & Firearm Facts

Numerous politicians, gun-control advocates, and others have called for a renewal of the ban on “Assault Weapons” that was law for ten years; from 1994 until 2004. To support their efforts, the gun-ignorant media is fond of showing images of ominous-looking, black rifles described as “military style assault weapons.”

We are told that the only purpose for these weapons is offensive use—to attack and kill human beings. Really? Our police and military have these types of weapons. It has always been my understanding that the role of our police is to “serve and protect;” and that the role of our men and women in uniform is to “defend” our nation. The same politicians that claim these weapons only to be useful to attack others are guarded by them around the clock. In fact, this clearly shows a direct conflict in viewpoints; gun control advocates and those ignorant about firearms, tend to view them as “offensive instruments,” whereas gun rights advocates view firearms as “defensive tools.”

The fact is, until and unless a weapon is used to assault others, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” other than by name alone. There is no characteristic of any firearm that makes it more “aggressive” than another; it is the user that determines whether a weapon is to be used for assault or defense. Any gun, knife, baseball bat or automobile—even a book of matches—can become a weapon used to assault other human beings. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children using bags of fertilizer. In 2001, 3,000 people died because a handful of fanatics first used box cutters as “assault weapons.”

Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) fire bullets continuously as the trigger is held down. It has been illegal for citizens to own this type of gun since 1934.

Semi-automatic weapons are guns that fire a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They automatically eject the empty cartridge shell and chamber (load) another round from the gun’s clip or magazine. The gun can fire one round (bullet) after another with each pull of the trigger, until the magazine is empty. It is legal in the United States for citizens to own most models of semi-automatic pistols and rifles, but some states, like California, impose various restrictions upon them.

Weapons used by members of the armed forces and most police departments include semi-automatic pistols and rifles and fully automatic rifles.

In 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was passed, in order to enact some form of gun control, Senator Feinstein and other politicians ‘concerned with our safety,’ had to somehow differentiate “assault rifles” from other rifles. The main difference was that if a semiautomatic rifle had a detachable magazine, it could not also have a pistol grip and telescoping or adjustable stock. The law was later amended to include a ban on specific models of firearms, like AK-47s and AR-15s. Other restrictions involving things like bayonet attachments and grenade launchers was also part of the AWB, but I don’t believe these have ever been points of concern for proponents or opponents of Second Amendment rights.

Today in California, many of the same restrictions on assault weapons are still in place. You can own an AK-47 or AR-15 in California with a rifle stock and a detachable magazine, or one with a pistol grip if equipped with a magazine that requires a special tool in order to be detached (fixed). California gun owners are also currently limited to magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds.

When magazine capacity is limited, again the only individuals harmed are law abiding citizens. You are much less able to defend yourself with a low capacity magazine. It is often difficult to hit a target, even under the most controlled conditions (at the shooting range for example). Imagine having to shoot at a moving target while under attack! This is why 99.99% of police offers no longer carry six shot revolvers, but 10 to 14 round semi-automatic pistols.

The media and many politicians are also fond of making inaccurate statements akin to, “responsible gun owners and sportsmen don’t need these types of ‘high powered’ weapons.”

The fact is, the cartridge size used in an AR-15 is a .223 caliber—one of the lightest of any rifle. The reason shooters like the .223 round is because it is light, and it is accurate at long range for hunting and target shooting. The AK-47 shoots a 7.62 x 39 round which is larger but heavier and less accurate at longer ranges. Basically, a .223 caliber is the bullet size used in a firearm with a barrel bore diameter of .223 inches. A 7.62 x 39 is a bullet that is 7.62 mm in diameter held within a cartridge 39 mm long.

There are many traditional style rifles, not even suggested for control by legislators that are much more powerful than those using .223 or 7.62 x 39 rounds. For example, many rifles commonly fire .30, .303 and .323 caliber bullets. I have fired a lever-action rifle that fires a .45-70 round. It is easily three times the size and weight of the .223 and powerful enough to drop any animal alive on the North American continent with a single shot. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested “banning” a weapon that fires a .45-70 round.

Amongst handguns, the most common are those that fire either 9 mm, .22 .38, .357, .40, and .45 caliber.

In all the mass shootings that occurred between 1982 and 2012, the killers used a total of 142 firearms. Of that number, 68 were semi-automatic pistols, 20 were revolvers, 19 were shotguns. Only 35 were considered “assault rifles.” There were nearly 8,000 deaths attributed to firearms in 2010, of which only 358 were caused by rifles of any kind, including so-called “assault weapons.”

There is nothing that makes an AR-15 or an AK-47, or any other rifle or pistol for that matter, an “assault weapon,” other than how it is used.

Fantasy and Hypocrisy or Reality and Responsibility

Do we really want our children surrounded by armed guards? Do we want our schools to be like prisons? Isn’t it time to draw the line and ban “military style assault weapons,” if only to save just one life?

All of these questions sound sincere and noble. The problem is, they assume a world not as it is but as we might like it to be. These words are used by people living in a world of fantasy; by those fearful and ignorant about firearms, or by hypocrites who either employ or who are assigned armed security for their protection (politicians, celebrities and the very wealthy), yet who feel somehow justified in denying you the same level of protection.

For example, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is both a hypocrite and ignorant. He is a hypocrite because he enjoys 24-hour security by men carrying not only semi-automatic but high-capacity, fully automatic weapons. And I know he is ignorant about firearms because if he had ever fired a handgun in trying to hit a target at 25 yards, he would know that a seven round magazine is wholly inadequate for personal protection.

It is estimated that there are at least 450 million guns in the possession of private citizens in the United States. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago so it is pointless and irresponsible to talk about “banning” guns. They are here to stay, and unfortunately, there are bad people in the world who would harm you and/or the members of your family, given the opportunity.

Every off duty or retired law enforcement officers I know own and carry, or have close at hand, at least one loaded firearm. Why do you think that is? They well know the reality of our society and assume responsibility for their own safety and that of their family. Most also feel it their duty to protect their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Do I think it appropriate to scare children or make them feel insecure? Not at all. Do I believe bad guys are hiding behind every tree and that we should live in fear? No, I am simply aware that while the odds are against ever needing to use a firearm to protect my family, it is my responsibility to do so if need be.

It is precisely because I refuse to live in fear that I own firearms. It is every parent’s responsibility to do whatever is within their power to protect their children. When a crime occurs in America—be it a home invasion, rape, or a child abduction—in 99% of cases, the police arrive after the crime has occurred. The statement La Pierre made that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” may be an unfortunate reality, but it is the unabashed truth in any case.

With millions guns of all types in existence, any criminal who intends to have one can get one, along with ammunition magazines of any capacity desired, regardless of existing or proposed laws. Whenever a new law is passed intended to restrict or “control” guns, the only people affected are the wrong people—law-abiding citizens who then become more likely to become victims of gun-wielding criminals.

“Imagine a world without guns,” some say. But that is a world that, for the foreseeable future, cannot exist. And while you may choose not to protect your own family from possible danger, it is not your right or the government’s to determine what level of protection I may choose to provide for my family.

CLAIM: “If more guns are the answer, then why aren’t mass murders ever stopped by citizens carrying guns?”

Proponents of more gun control are quick to point out that there have been scores of mass shootings (defined as when four or more people are shot) in America since 1982. “If more guns could prevent these crimes,” they say, “then why weren’t these killers stopped by ordinary citizens carrying guns?”

The answer should be obvious, but again because of the pre-determined assumption that guns are the problem, most fail to comprehend it.

The fact is, armed citizens have stopped thousands of criminals before they could commit crimes in the first place. Murderers were stopped before they could kill four or more people, so we can never know exactly how many mass murders may have been thwarted. Each month, the NRA publishes documented accounts where law-abiding gun owners stopped criminals.

In one study by the Cato Institute, between October 2003 and November 2011, over 5,000 incidents were reported whereby armed citizens stopped criminals. Of that number, 488 involved home burglaries along with another 1,227 incidents where intruders fled when confronted by armed inhabitants. Thirty-four concerned delivery drivers defending themselves, along with 172 animal attacks. In 227 incidents the intended victim disarmed his attacker. Twenty-five rapes were avoided by armed victims Two hundred and one attacks were stopped by armed senior citizens over 65 years of age.

The FBI and DOJ data on incidents where firearms have been used to halt crimes is conveniently un-reported by gun-control advocates.

Had there been one or two individuals in the front row of the theatre in Aurora Colorado with .40 or .45 semi-automatic handguns, it is likely that James Holmes would have been stopped before killing 12 and injuring 58 others. Even though he was wearing body armor, at the very least, the impact would have knocked him down or perhaps even rendered him unconscious.

Statistics support the fact that in areas where concealed carry and open carry of firearms in public is legal, crime rates are lower. The fact is, the best way deter or stop criminals from committing crimes is for more law abiding citizens—particularly women—to be armed.

The real reasons for the Sandy Hook Tragedy and Causes of Gun Violence

Guns are easy scapegoats but they do not come close to the real answer for why Adam Lanza acted as he did. While I have heard some discussion about mental health, I have heard nothing about the effects of homes broken by divorce. I have heard nothing about our young people being raised in a time when society is confused about what values are important; where virtuous character amongst our leaders is rare and where the value of life itself is “debated” and used as a political device. What do our actions teach young people about commitment? About honesty and fidelity? How important is one’s spiritual foundation and belief? Did anyone know or even care what Adam Lanza believed?

We will never know all the answers as to why a young man gave up on life, or why he felt so desperate that he allowed evil to infect his soul so much that he was able to commit such a terrible act. I do know that even if Adam Lanza had some form of mental illness, it also likely that he had no real foundation on which to base his life. He had nothing to hold on to, so he let go of his life that he considered empty, and he took the innocent lives of 27 other with him.

Had it not been with an AR-15, it is likely that he would have used several pistols, or a bomb, or a five gallon can of gasoline. The reason for his violent act was in nothing he possessed or used, it was in what he had become as a person.

The fact is, criminals commit crimes. They could care less whether gun laws exist or not. And in the case of most mass shootings, two issues are in play: one, the shooter also cares nothing about gun laws, and two, the root cause is generally a mental illness problem. This is also true in the case of suicides where guns are used.

In all these cases then, additional restrictions on guns can only harm law-abiding gun owners, making them more vulnerable to criminals.

And with regards to the Second Amendment, further restrictions on Citizens’ ability to be armed likewise makes them vulnerable to some future government oppression–and unless you can tell me who the president will be in 2028 and beyond, don’t tell me, “it will never happen,” because you, nor anyone else, has any clue what America will be like in the years to come.

My Stand

I own firearms for several reasons. The first and least important reason is for sport;  I like target shooting and I enjoy collecting guns. My second reason for owning firearms is that I believe it is my responsibility, as a prepared citizen, to do so. Should the need ever arise, however unlikely, that I would have to defend my liberty or the liberty of my fellow citizens, I have an obligation and duty to do so.

Many years ago, my wife and I were held against our will by a group of bikers. We were out in the country, far away from any possible aid. I was thrown backward into the bed of a pick-up truck by one man who was flanked by several others holding rifles and shotguns. I was told that “you can leave when we tell you you can leave.”

We were forced to wait for over eight hours as they drank and partied. We wanted to try and run, but were warned by one of the group, “I know you’re thinking about taking off, but don’t try it. These guys will come after you and kill you both.” Luckily, they were all eventually so inebriated, we were able to leave, unharmed.

That was over thirty years ago, but I still remember feeling utterly helpless. Everything could have turned out differently of course, as both our lives were at the mercy of a band of drunken, stoned, heavily armed thugs.

The final and most important reason I own firearms is that I vow never to allow my wife or myself to be in that situation, or anything like it, again. I, alone, am ultimately responsible for my safety and the safety of my wife and family.

I own firearms because I love my family and will do whatever is required to keep them safe.

The bulk of this article originally appeared in ALIVE Magazine, February, 2013