Before we jump into this juicy topic, I want to state a couple of facts up front.  First, I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of…chicken sandwiches.  I absolutely love them.  I love the spicy ones, I love the plain ones and I really love them with mayonnaise.  I also believe in the sanctity of marriage.  By marriage, I mean anyone that is in a committed relationship.  I don’t care if it’s two girls, two guys or what society considers “normal,” meaning a man and a woman.

However, that’s not what this blog is about.  At its core, I suppose it probably is, but that’s not the topic I want to discuss.  I want to discuss the hypocrisy of the media (both Liberal and Conservative) and the reactions of certain personalities to the recent statements by the Chick-fil-A ownership.

Now, Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A didn’t come out of his own volition and say “we at Chick-fil-A hate gays and lesbians and will refuse to serve them.”  That’s not what he said.  He was asked a very pointed, very direct, very loaded question in an interview.  In that interview when asked if he believed in the sanctity of marriage (which despite my play on it above, generally means one man and one woman) he answered:

“Guilty as charged.  That is, the biblical definition of the family unit.”

If you know anything about Chick-fil-A you know that they’re a Christian Family company.  They are built on their morals and their beliefs.  This restaurant isn’t even open Sundays.  They lose that revenue every week because they believe their employees shouldn’t work on the Sabbath.  That’s how into their faith and beliefs they are.  So, what did you expect them to say?  It’s not like there are signs posted at their restaurants that say: “gays aren’t served here.”  But ask the liberal media and you’d think he was guilty of beating up gay people in the street.  And, it wasn’t just the media that responded.  The Hollyweird elite came out of the woodwork.  One of my favorites was Roseanne Barr who said:

“I hope that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A gets cancer and dies.”

I’ve been hoping Roseanne got hit by a bus “Final Destination” style since she sang the “Star Spangled Banner” and completely ruined our national anthem.  But…whatever.  She’s still here, so we have to deal with her.  But the protests, and the backlash against a private company that is exercising their First Amendment right is being completely ostracized.  On the other hand, conservative outlets are praising Cathy for standing his ground and taking the moral high road.  They are praising him for exercising his rights.  The right vs. the left.  It’s an issue of standing the moral ground and stating what he believes in vs. caving in and going with what’s popular.  This whole thing seems vaguely familiar.  I’m remembering another incident from nine years ago.  Funny enough, I think it also involved poultry in some way.  Oh yeah….now I remember.  It was the Dixie Chicks!

In March, 2003, the country music group, the Dixie Chicks were performing a concert in England when group leader, Natalie Maines said to the crowd:

“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

The conservative right went absolutely ape shit!  They banned the group from the radio, they shunned them from award shows, Toby Keith (although oddly enough also a Democrat) went off on them.  But, the liberal left thought that the girls, especially Maines, were brave for speaking their minds about such a controversial subject at such a turbulent time.  Even as the group saw its popularity go down quicker than a hooker in Central Park, they stood their ground, supported by liberal media moguls like Peter Jennings and Wolf Blitzer.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is, both chickens crossed the road against traffic for things they believed in.  As a good friend (who’s quite liberal) told me recently, we can’t pick and choose which constitutional amendments we support and agree with.  The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights in its entirety.  We don’t get to decide which ones we like whether we’re conservative or liberal.

At the end of the day, you can eat chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A or you can eat cheeseburgers from Burger King.  It doesn’t really matter what the chicken guy says, just like the Iraq war went on, despite what the Dixie Chicks thought.  The fight for equality will go on.

 

Advertisements

So Friday, July 20th was a pretty shitty day to say the least.  Those of you that care are probably pretty curious why it’s taken me so long to respond to this horrible act being that it involves guns and inevitably politics.  Honestly, I took the weekend off.  I almost wrote about it Friday night, but I decided to take a breath and really think about how I wanted to tackle what happened.  Would it be a true “Jason’s Rant” where I talk about the politics involved and the fallout that’s sure to come?  Do I spout the hatred I feel for James Egan Holmes and what an absolute piece of garbage he is.  I mulled this over while I enjoyed my weekend and tried not to think about the 58 people who were in the hospital in Aurora, Colorado and the 12 others who would never enjoy another weekend again.  I mulled over the possibilities and the “what if” there was an armed moviegoer that night who fought back.  I mulled this over and decided that instead of ranting, instead of spouting off, I would try and help you all.

The “active shooter” is the new form of terrorism.  No, James Holmes didn’t have a beard and dark skin, nor did he have a prayer rug and face towards Mecca six times a day to sing a song and bow to Allah, but he was a terrorist none the less.  We don’t truly know what Mr. Holme’s motives were, and perhaps we’ll never know, but he was definitely there to terrorize and cause chaos, much like the character, Bane, many said he looked like.  This is the new terrorism, and it’s been around for quite some time from Columbine to Salt Lake City to Fort Hood and now, sadly, Aurora joins those ranks.

It’s quite obvious that nowhere is truly safe.  Many of you know that I carry my firearm practically everywhere, and I’m not second guessing anyone with this blog, however, a trained shooter could have taken out James Holmes before he completed his mission.  But, not everyone is a trained shooter.  Not all of you carry a firearm and that’s okay.  But, what would you do if caught in this situation?  Would you run?  Would you lay down?  Would you fight back?  It’s tough to say.  No one can truly say what they would do, but these are some things I can tell you.  Take them for what they are.

A long time ago I attended a course titled “Dynamics in International Terrorism.”  The speaker was quite engaging and his talked was titled “The Lion and the Lamb.”  The metaphor simply stated was: when faced with a situation, would you fight back or would you lie down and take it?  Is it that simple?  Science says “yes.”

When an individual is faced with a situation that is terrifying, the body reacts in one of three ways.  This used to be called the “fight or flight” response, but a third option has been added: freeze.  On three of the four planes that went down on 9/11, the passengers froze.  On the fourth, the chose fight.  See what I mean?  The same can be applied to the patrons of the “Dark Knight” on Friday.  It was terrifying and disorienting and completely unexpected, just like that day eleven years ago on those airplanes.  Nobody ever thinks it’s going to happen until it does, and then it happens and you either respond or you don’t.

I’m going to stop right here and make something clear.  I am not chastising nor demeaning anyone in that theater on Friday or on the planes so long ago.  I’m merely saying that everyone responds differently.  Sometimes, somebody just needs to say: “let’s roll,” and take out the threat.  But again, maybe you’re not that person.  Here are some things you can do to survive a situation like this.

If you’re somewhere where an active shooting occurs, the first thing you should do is drop to the floor.  The guy is firing standing up, and therefore the lower you are, the better.  Try putting your hands over your head.  It will help protect you.  Your instinct will be to run, but that will only make you a target.  If you’re with loved ones you’d like to protect, lie on top of them, but lie perfectly still.  The goal is to appear dead.  The shooter only cares about killing people and therefore won’t shoot you if he thinks he already got you.

Carry a firearm.  There are places all over the country you can get trained, no matter where you live (with some 2nd amendment violating exceptions) that will teach you.  Owning and carrying a firearm is your right as an American and really the only way to fight back if someone is shooting.  Restricting gun laws more than they already are only takes away from the law abiding citizens and does nothing to stop the criminals.  However, training is important.  You should never carry a weapon you haven’t fired on the range.

The bottom line, you have the responsibility to protect yourself and your family.  The police do the best they can (and yes, I truly believe that) but they can’t be everywhere all the time.  Get educated, get trained and be aware of what is going on around you.  It’s the only way to be ready.  Because when the wolf comes knocking on the door, you have to ask yourself one question: Are you the lamb to get slaughtered, or are you the Lion who says, “let’s roll.”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, you know the name George Zimmerman.  Depending on which side of this sordid tale you fall, that name either invokes great pride at an ordinary man who overcame the odds and fought evil, or you see the opposite:  the epitome of evil who murdered a fine young man for being “black in a no black zone.”  How you feel about him was most likely influenced by the media because of the way they’ve latched onto this story with both hands and led us around by the noses.

When the story first broke, I will admit, I thought: “what an asshole.  This guy will set the concealed carry laws and people’s feelings about it back by 100 years.”  I listened to the news, I even heard the 911 call that I thought damned Zimmerman to the electric chair.  “How could they let this guy walk?” I thought.  This is crazy.  He quite obviously went out looking for trouble and trouble is what he found.  What kind of a neighborhood watch rolls around armed, anyways.  Then I found out the guy was a wannabe cop, and that fueled my dislike for him higher.  I wore my “hoodie” in the San Antonio heat in honor of the young man that was gunned down.  Then we heard a different story.

I think I was at an airport when the news of the “doctored” 911 tape broke.  For those of you keeping track at home, NBC news edited the 911 call to make it sound like George Zimmerman was signaling out Trayvon Martin because of his race.  This was one of my reasons that I was so against Zimmerman.  The edited call went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

However, after the real 911 tape was released, we actually heard the dispatcher ask a very important question during the dialogue between the two.  The actual, unedited conversation went like this:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 OPERATOR: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?”

ZIMMERMAN: “He looks black.”

Hmmm…you mean to tell me that a reputable news agency like NBC News would do something like this to slant a story?  I mean come on…these guys catch sexual predators on tv.  They’re the good guys…right?  Wrong.  I started paying a little more attention to how the story of this vigilante was being told in the media.  When pictures of Trayvon Martin were shown, it was a young Trayvon Martin, smiling, in a football uniform, in a suit and tie going to church.  All the pictures were slanted to show him in the best light possible.  All the pictures of George Zimmerman were of him disheveled, unshaven and shown in the worst light.  Hmmm…I still can’t believe the guys that take sex offenders out would do something like this.  But they did.  Still, I thought old George was wrong to be there.

As time went on, we all know what happened.  I won’t rehash the story here, but I’ll get to the point that forced me to write this blog.  Last night, I watched the “exclusive interview” George Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity from Fox News.  Now, before you go off about Fake News or Faux News or whatever you MSNBC types call it, let me finish.  I’m pretty George picked Fox because they are a little more aligned to the line of thinking that he is.  I’m pretty sure Chris Hansen isn’t packing when he goes in to talk the creepers.  My point is, I think George thought the interview was going to be in his favor.  I was impressed to see Sean put George to the thumbtacks.  He asked hard questions.  He asked direct questions.  And, as George answered those questions, I felt myself sympathizing with him.  He’s a guy who’s married and is tired of the “bad guys” getting away with crime.  Me too.  I’m married and I hate that bad guys get away with crime.  He legally carries a concealed firearm.  I don’t go to Wal-Mart to buy a gallon of milk unless I’m armed. (See my first blog for more details.)  I’m a firm believer in my 4th Amendment rights, as he is.  Was I really relating to this guy…this murderer?  I couldn’t believe what I was feeling.

Hannity asked him what happened.  He explained, for the first time ever on television, that he was going to Target to do his weekly grocery shopping.  His neighbor had been robbed weeks before and it had scared his wife.  On his way to Target, he spotted a young man walking in the rain, close to the houses.  This made him suspicious so he “slow rolled” past.  Let me stop you all right there.  I think this is where he made Mistake #1.  He’s not a cop.  He’s not trained as a cop.  If he had called the cops right there, reported a “suspicious person” and moved on, none of this would have happened, but he didn’t.  He called the cops, but he stopped the car and got out so he could “give the police a better address.”  At that point, he had lost sight of Trayvon and the situation was over.  The 911 Dispatcher even asked George “are you following him?”  George indicated he was and the dispatcher instructed him to stop.  Now, George is under no legal obligation to listen to a dispatcher, but he should have taken the advice.  This was Mistake #2, and this is why: once Trayvon was gone, it should have been over.  But, the wannabe cop decided he wanted to play detective.  He wanted to be a hero.  He never should have been there, but he was and when Trayvon reappeared, George was in trouble.

According to the interview, Trayvon attacked George without warning and punched him so hard he broke his nose.  He then began pounding his head off the concrete.  George began screaming, hoping someone would come to his aid.  In fact, in the 911 call that was played from another caller, you can hear those screams in the background.  Those screams, mind you, the media made you believe were Trayvon’s earlier in this whole dilemma.  At this point in the interview, I’m back with George.  I’ve had my ass kicked, and it’s not a whole lot of fun.  I can tell you that if I had someone on top of me, playing “bouncy ball” with my head on the concrete and I had my firearm, I would have done exactly what George did next.  He pulled the weapon and fired, ultimately killing Trayvon.  He had every right to defend himself.  If that’s what happened.  I will defend his right to do that until my own dying breath.  If we don’t have the right of self defense, what do we have?  The question is, did Trayvon attack because he thought he was about to be attacked himself?  I guess it’s a question we’ll never have answered.

As I watched the interview, I found myself going back and forth with my feelings on this issue.  I was so anti-George when this all first broke, that I was having serious issues thinking that I could identify with this guy…but I was.  Then Hannity asked the mother of all questions:

Do you regret this incident?  Do you regret getting out of the car?  This was George’s chance.  He could really say he was sorry.  That’s not what happened.  He said about the worst possible thing he could have said.

“I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it…”

What?  Are you kidding me?  Come on, dude.  I consider myself a Christian, but really?  It was God’s plan?  You just lost everyone that was on the fence like me.

When you carry a gun, and you’re not a law enforcement officer, you don’t put yourself in situations that can lead to something like this.  You don’t intentionally go looking for trouble.  When you do, you’re no better than the thugs that carry illegally.  As I said, I carry, but I don’t ever want to have to kill someone.  Ever.  But, don’t mistake not wanting to with won’t.

So, my take on this?  I think the spin that the liberal media (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC) put on this from the beginning was irresponsible reporting to say the least and criminal (NBC) to go to the extreme.  I think that George put himself in a bad situation that he made continually worse by bad decisions.  However, once Trayvon attacked, I think George did the only thing that he thought he could to survive.  He killed before he was killed.  I don’t know.  I’m glad he was arrested, because now there will be a trial.  Let’s hope the law and the system can spread some light where the liberal media has failed miserably.

 

 

So, as I woke up this morning and listened to the local radio guys yap about a whole lot of nothing, I decided I was going to write my blog about what a douchey, ungrateful prick Justin Bieber is.  Have you listened to this kid?  He’s an absolute Douche bag with a capital “D”.  I heard a piece of an interview this morning and he completely degraded the DJ interviewing him.  He’s self important, entitled and really, just gives Canada a bad name altogether.

Anyways, as I said, I was going to write my blog about this little shit, and then something else happened.  I engaged in a friendly debate with a friend of mine on Facebook regarding the government requiring an individual who is collecting welfare to drug test.  It was a good debate and she actually brought up a couple of points that made me take pause and think.  I thought I would share my views with you.

First, let me tell you that I absolutely believe that everyone who is receiving welfare should have to take a urinalysis once a year.  It should be administered by the state and the examiner should have to “watch the urine leave the body and enter the specimen collection container.”  Why did I say it like that and put it in quotes?  Because that’s what the U.S. military is required to do.  If you didn’t know, taking a drug test in the Air Force is quite the ordeal.  The proctor of the “whiz quiz” must actually watch the stream leave my body and enter the cup.  I’ve had some dudes so close to me, I felt like I was auditioning for a role in a “golden shower” flick.  Sorry…I digress.

Why do I think people who are taking welfare should pee to get their check?  Well, sorry to state the obvious but I want to make sure that people who are receiving a handout aren’t doing drugs.  “A ‘handout’ you say?  You insensitive prick!  How dare you label the downtrodden of this country as a bunch of losers who are a drain on our society.”

That’s actually not what I said.  However, taking money that you didn’t earn is a handout.  Granted, it’s a handout meant to get you on your feet and get you back to work, but it’s a government handout all the same.  That being said, government is the key word.  Where does the money come from?  Our taxes.  My taxes.  Your taxes.  It comes from us.  So, my logic is, I want to ensure that the person I’m giving my money to isn’t on drugs.  Stated simply, there it is.

Now…the biggest argument against this is that it violates your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.  My friend (who is a teacher) posted a link to a website.  This is the text from that link showing the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, there you go.  That’s what the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects you from, in case you didn’t know.  However, that website goes on to say this:

The police can not search someone’s person (body), house, papers, or effects (other things) without having a good reason. They can not take any thing from someone without a good reason.

Oh…the police?  We’re not talking about the police taking the list of everyone collecting welfare and going door to door with bottles of water and specimen collection cup. I’m saying that as a prerequisite to receiving a check from the U.S. government, you pee in a cup and prove that you aren’t a substance user/abuser.  Since I’m posting links from webpages, here’s another one.

Company Policy. Landrum Professional is a Drug-Free Workplace. As a condition of employment, all employees assigned to work for Landrum Professional must agree to take a drug test at any time such a test is requested by the Landrum Professional Human Resources Manager, or other representative of Landrum Professional management. It is the position of Landrum Professional that use of illegal drugs, misuse of prescription drugs or misuse of alcohol is destructive and dangerous, and can have a negative effect on job performance.

I just Googled “urinalysis condition of employment” and that was the first result that came up.  A business that requires a drug test as a condition of employment.  Hmmm…weird.  So you’re telling me that based on what I’ve read, over half the corporations in the United States require drug testing as a condition of employment, but our government, truly the biggest corporation of all, can’t drug test to ensure the free money it gives out isn’t going to drug users?  The hell you say.  I say, if you’re not doing drugs, what the hell do you have to be afraid of?  To test this theory, I went to the one person I knew has collected welfare in her life.  My mom.

When my parents first divorced when I was five, my mom needed some assistance from the government.  She needed a handout to get a leg up.  She was on welfare.  I called her tonight to ask her how she would have felt if the government told her she was required to take a drug test prior to receiving any aid.  Her response:

“I would have had no problem with that.”  (I hope I quoted you accurately, mom.)

So there you have it.  A quote from a person who has collected welfare and lived in government subsidized housing for a short period of time.  Of course, my mother isn’t the typical welfare recipient.  She was only on it for just over a year and as soon as she could pull herself up by the bootstraps, she did.  She got off it, we moved out of the ghetto (as it was in Great Falls, Montana) and she bought a house.  That doesn’t usually happen.  Generally, it’s once on welfare always on welfare.  I’m sorry to make the generalization, but prove me wrong.  You can’t, because I’m right.  But that’s not the point.  The point is, you leftish thinking folks think that it’s a huge infringement on the rights of the downtrodden to make them submit to a 15 second test to quickly prove they’re not on drugs.

The next point made to me earlier was: “what about social security? Should they have to take a test as well?”

This point actually gives my pause.  I say that only because it is money coming from the state.  However, my response earlier is still my response now.  No.  Social Security is kind of like a savings account.  At least that’s how I see it.  My parents and grandparents paid into their whole lives.  Granted, what they’re getting out of it doesn’t come close to what they paid in, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.  I’m paying into and will probably never see because they’re going to take it all, but that’s okay.

So to wrap it all up.  I don’t know if I’ve proved anything beyond the shadow of a doubt but that’s not the point of this.  I hope maybe you took pause and thought about my point of view (if you’re on the other side of the fence) or were at least entertained by the way I wrote what I had to say.  Either way, comment if you’d like, share if you think it’s worthy but above all, smile.  We’re too serious anyways!

Do you tip?  My mother-in-law hates to tip.  She hates it so much that she would rather glare and me and curse me in Spanish (which she doesn’t think I can understand) than leave two dollars for a toothless, pregnant, ratty haired waitress who brought her the pork roast sandwich at Denny’s.  Why is that?  I ask myself every time we have dinner with her and I have to endure the embarrassment.  Is it a difference in cultures?  Is it the fact that she’s cheap?  I can’t really tell you, but I think it all boils down to the lost art of customer service.  She truly believes that good CS does not deserve a couple of extra bucks.  I, on the other hand, believe quite the opposite.

I recently had a pretty shitty experience with a major cell phone carrier.  I won’t name any names (can you hear me now…good), but I had a phone that quit working.  As is the policy, I sent the phone back in the box they provided after they sent me a warranty replacement.  I thought that was the end of the ordeal.  I couldn’t have been more wrong.

About a month and a half later, I went online to check my bill and much to my chagrin I found that I not only owed them my normal monthly fee (which is ridiculous enough, by the way), but added to that was the amount of $499.99.  “What the hell could that be from?” I wondered aloud.  I actually did.  You can ask my cubicle mate.  In order to find out, I dialed *611 on my wireless device (have you figured out what service I’m with yet?) and reached a customer service rep.  This young woman very politely proceeded to apologize profusely for the mistake and assured me it would be corrected quickly.  She asked for some basic information and said she was filing a “trouble ticket” and would get back to me as soon as she had more information.  She then asked: “is there anything else I can help you with?”  As if I was going to say: “why yes, since you’re screwing me out of five hundred bucks I don’t have, why don’t I upgrade my plan to unlimited everything.”  No…I’m good.

A month went by and I forgot about it.  I know, I know…I should have followed up, but I’m busy.  Then the collections calls started rolling in.  “Sir, your service will be interrupted if you don’t take care of this balance.”  Why the hell would I take care of a balance I didn’t rack up?  Once I explained the situation, I was immediately transferred to customer service.  I was forced to repeat the entire story all over again.  Then, this young man proceeded to degrade his customer service colleague, stating she didn’t fill out the trouble ticket correctly.  This is why it wasn’t resolved, he explained.  I nodded like an idiot on the other end and gave him all the info I gave her, plus a little more that he asked for.  Again, I was promised a follow up call, but that never came either.  More calls from the collection department who cleverly disguised themselves as “financial services.”  By this point I had become so accustomed to the calls as soon as I answered, I immediately said: “please transfer me to customer service.”

One “financial servicer” didn’t like this answer and asked me for some more information.  He didn’t like it when I said: “my balance is so high because you lost my phone.”

“Sir,” he replied. “I’ve never seen your phone.”

You’re right, dip shit…you didn’t lose my phone.  I’m using “you” in the general sense of your company.  Whatever.  That comment earned me a hang up.  I’m sure the call “accidentally” dropped when he was transferring me to the every waiting customer non-service.

The next month and a half was more of the same.  It actually got to the point where my service was interrupted for about an hour.  That was quickly rectified by a pretty heated call.

Finally, I followed up with a true master of customer service.  I called.  I explained the situation (for probably…no exaggeration…the 30th time) while he reviewed the extensive notes.  It took this guy five minutes to locate the phone utilizing the ESN (electronic serial number) and find out that the phone had not only been received by Verizon Wireless (whoops…let the cat out of the bag) but had been refurbished and sent back out to another customer.  If that’s the case, then why have I been charged five hundred dollars and numerous late fees?  The young man had no answer, but he and his supervisor quickly reversed all the charges.

Now…why did it take this long?  Because people don’t give a shit about their jobs.  What did the first, second, third, or any of the customer service folks care that I was getting hosed?  They stuck to their script, they asked their questions, but they didn’t resolve anything.  I agree the CS can be a shitty job, and I’m sure that there are douche bags out there that holler and scream.  All of you that I talked to are lucky I’m a pretty nice guy.  I never once raised my voice or played the “blame game” except to that one snotty “financial servicer” aka collection agent.  The point of this 900 word diatribe is that we all need to be a bit better at what we do.  Let’s have a bit more pride in our work, because if I screwed up my job as bad as they screwed up theirs (comparatively speaking, of course) somebody would be dead instead of owing an extra five hundred bucks.  Think about it.

Hello all.  I have an opinion.  Actually, I have several opinions about a lot of different things.  I’ve also been told I’m an above mediocre writer. Therefore, I thought I would put my writing talents together with my opinions and create this blog.  If you like what I have to say, stick around.  I’ll probably piss you off eventually.  If you don’t like what I have to say, know this:  I’m sure that you have another point of view that you think is equally correct.  I’m also sure that I think your idea(s) is/are as stupid as you think mine are.  I don’t let them change my opinion of you as a person, I would hope you’ll extend me the same courtesy.  I enjoy a good debate, so if there’s something you want to talk about or discuss with me, please leave me a comment.  I’m an attention whore and I love instant gratification.  That’s why I think the internet is so cool.  That all being said, I promise to answer every comment posted.

Ok…I think that about sums this whole thing up.  Let’s sit back and enjoy the ride.  The first post from this experiment is coming up soon!

Proposed U.N. Treaty Should Have Gun Owners Up in Arms

What a topic for my first real blog post.  Actually, reading this article and thinking about the implications are what made me decide to start writing this blog, so I suppose I should be thankful.  There a few things that come to mind.

First, whether you are pro-gun (like me) or anti-gun (like President Obama and Secretary Clinton), you must admit that allowing the United Nations dictate our country’s policies regarding controlling firearms or anything else is very dangerous.  We have a constitution that was written nearly 250 years ago.  Some of you may think that makes some of the provisions in it out of date, and that’s fine.  That’s an argument for another time.  But the fact of the matter is, I refuse to believe we will allow a body of other nations to police us.

Secondly, as you read further into the article, you must see that our country is headed down the wrong path.  You are going to take my right to own a gun?  What do you think would happen if a conservative took a liberal’s right to free speech?  What you’re saying here is that it’s okay to pick and chose which parts of the constitution we adhere to.  I mean, it’s not like the 2nd Amendment wasn’t part of the original U.S. Constitution.  It’s called the Bill of Rights for a reason.  But, I digress.

Another part of the article I found interesting was the passage in which Hillary Clinton claimed to be a supporter of gun rights.  Really?  I mean, she does understand she doesn’t have to lie to make friends.  She does understand that you can’t get all the votes, right?  She’s a senator…a liberal senator…from the kingdom of liberaldom.  She’s from New “effing” York.  Nobody is allowed to have a gun there.  It nearly takes an act of congress to make that happen.  I have family in New York (state, not city) and they have told me about the gun laws there.  Pure and simple, it’s about as close as you can get to a ban on legal firearms…outside of California which is a whole other animal.  Of course, there’s one place that’s worse than both of them together.  No…not Canada.  I’m talking about the great state of Illinois, and more specifically, the place the man we’re forced to callMr. President hailed from.  After he was from Hawaii.  After he was from Kenya.  Of course, that’s all dependent on what you believe.

Anyways…did you know that until recently it was illegal…illegal…yes, I said illegal to own a handgun in the city of Chicago.  That’s right.  The city that the great savior came from banned ownership (and I’m not talking about carrying) I’m talking about owning a handgun.  It was illegal.  And you think this guy wants you to have guns.  He’s probably smoking Newports with the U.N. general assembly right now, trying to get them to pass this law..or treaty…or whatever you want to call it.

I own a gun.  I intend on buying more…quickly by the sounds of it before an assembly of non-Americans decides that I can’t.  But know this:  The day that they come knocking on my door to take my guns, I’ll shoot for the head because they’re probably wearing body armor.