A Safer Pennsylvania!

Except not really, because nine of the twelve proposals recently published by the PA Auditor General are biased trash that’s narrowly focused on an agenda and not an actual solution.

Proposals 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 – These proposals would be good for helping prevent violence of any form. My frustration with this is that it’s never addressed as the broader issue that it really is, but instead tunnel vision on something that’s not even the underlying issue. This just flows with the rest of the report, which is littered with repetitive talking points to convince people that a particular inanimate object is somehow a unique threat and public health crisis. This is unhelpful as it draws attention from the real issue with mental health and violence, and what motivates so many individuals to commit mass murder. The instrument is irrelevant, as it’s just one of a million different options. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, was convicted for 48 murders and confessed to 71, and yet the way he strangled his victims rightfully never caught the crazy fixation of a political agenda.

Proposal 3 – MD’s are not qualified to discuss the topic of gun safety, and falls well outside their swim lane (the NRA was right). It’s the equivalent of your car mechanic lecturing you on how to avoid a car accident. Their technical expertise does not make them an expert on physics, driving techniques, or human behavior. If this is the standard that we’re setting, then do it across the board and be prepared for the longest “health” surveys of your life: Do you own a car? Do you ride a motorcycle? Do you own a swimming pool? Do you own sharp objects? Do you have any OTC medications or items that are toxic? Do you have access to a tall building or roof? Do you have any stored gasoline or propane? (this list could go on forever) All great safety talking points, but to cherry pick firearms for discussion in a clinic is blatantly biased. If I were asked this question in a doctors office I would tell him/her to go fuck themselves and that it’s none of their business. I’ll talk to a SAMI if I want an opinion from someone who actually matters on this subject.

Proposal 5 and 6 – A training course with qualified firearm experts is a great way to teach safety, but it makes no sense to waste tax dollars to create a new voluntary program with such a narrow subject that few people will attend. Valuable courses already exist in the private sector, and teach way more than simple fundamentals of safety. They expand into a wide range of topics, that even involve live fire training (I have a feeling Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). The encouragement of safe storage is good, but this is a bigger problem than education – it’s financial. If anyone really supports these proposals, then give people their hard earned income back by offering tax credits to create an incentive and make it affordable. A single safe that offers actual security can greatly exceed the value of the average homeowners firearms. Additionally, you can also donate to the NRA because training and safety programs are what they already do (again, I bet Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). If you’re concerned with lobbying, campaign funding, or legal actions that the NRA is involved in, that is a separate pot of money collected by the NRA-ILA.

Proposal 9 – Bureaucracy at its finest. Create an additional expense and administrative burden to tell us that thieves steal things, and might commit even more crimes later. When we read the reports, we’ll all pretend to be surprised that criminals don’t care what the laws are.

As for the other proposals that are decent, #4 is something I'm sure is already practiced by FFL dealers, but it doesn't hurt to offer insight. Proposal 10 does offer the opportunity to connect individuals to multiple crimes, which would help ensure criminals are being held fully accountable. Finally, proposal 11 is what every law abiding gun owner has been advocating from the beginning - enforce the laws already on the books! 

Rich white people are telling us we don’t need guns

Did you guys hear that? It was the voice of an overpaid, white Hollywood actress. From within a nook of her million dollar home, situated inside a gated community with private security, she assertively denounces the choice you’ve made to protect your home with an AR-15. Her criticism spews hatred for how you conceal carry in public, while she pays someone else to do her grocery shopping and makes arrangements for her bodyguards to drive her to a gun control rally.

At the rally, she convinces suburbanites whom live in neighborhoods with high property values to vote for magazine capacity limits. They’re easily convinced, because why would you need 30 rounds to feel safe if they feel they don’t need any rounds at all? After they drink the kool-aid, they go back to their lives in regions void of low-income housing that attract crime, and wave to police patrol units that their town can afford due to above average property tax revenue. The Hollywood actress, feeling good about herself, leaves the rally with her security entourage and heads off to an audition for a multi-million dollar role in a new action film where she’ll shoot people with guns.

But of course, this isn’t just limited to rich Hollywood types preaching in your ear. It could be billionaire Michael Bloomberg having it printed in the newspaper he owns... or the “man of the people” Bernie Sanders tweeting from one of his three mansions... or Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama while they travel the world with their lifetime taxpayer funded Secret Service…

Translation of their sermon: “Either you decide to get rich and live safely the way we do, or you decide to have no security at all… The only way you’re allowed to be protected by a gun is if you can pay someone else to carry it for you. The value of your life, family, or property is measured in who you can afford to protect it.”

For those in the gun community, these are arguments that need to be made. These rich people aren’t necessarily detached from reality per se, but they are certainly detached from OUR reality. They are oblivious to our insecurities, and therefore they take a stance on gun control that contradicts three fundamental views that leftists have of themselves. One is that they’re the righteous opposition to rich, white elitism, second as a bastion for the working class, and third as stalwarts of victim advocacy. The fact that on this particular issue they take a stance that's the polar opposite of what they claim to be shouldn't go unnoticed or without refute. Feeding them their own poison may be one of the simplest ways to get a point across.

Effective Pennsylvania Gun Rights Advocates

My impressions are based on watching who is getting things done. It could be simply a PR issue, but from where I am sitting:

Firearm Owners Against Crime is currently the most effective and visible group keeping on top of the issues and advocating for gun rights in Harrisburg.

Joshua Prince is currently the most effective litigator defending gun rights in the courts.

It's entirely possible my opinions are biased towards those good at self-promotion. However, it's difficult to argue with results. In recent memory, FOAC played what I believe was the biggest role in getting an unfortunately doomed bill passed to strengthen state preemption. Prince followed this up with a series of suits that got many municipalities to drop their illegal anti-gun ordinances.  More examples are easily found online.

FOAC and Prince are typically the source of information about what is going on in Harrisburg when it comes to gun rights. They deserve your support.

Here are Pennsylvania bills poised to degrade and destroy gun rights

Remember that in Pennsylvania governors may only serve two consecutive terms, after which they cannot run for governor again until they've waited a term. This means that a second-term Wolf, who is openly anti-gun, can go ape shit on guns knowing he won't face re-election again -- if he even wants it -- for 5-8 years depending on when he starts the push. The previous post presents data suggesting this push will begin immediately.

HB 2227:

This is an Extreme Risk Protection Order bill. Joshua Prince summarized the issues with it for FOAC. Essentially, anyone who has ever met you can have your guns confiscated with effectively no due process. The burden is entirely on you to clear your name and get your guns back.

HB 1400 (and its several variations):

Universal background checks.

SB 17:

This is an assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban. If passed, you'd have 120 days to register all "assault weapons" or turn them in. Registration requires an application process where you must submit the same information you do for a LTCF in addition to pictures of yourself and information about the item you are registering. Assuming you pass the background check and an investigation of your character and reputation, you will pay $15 and receive a certificate to possess the item that is good for 5 years. The renewal fee is also $15.

"Large capacity" magazines include any magazine (fixed magazines count!) with a capacity greater than 10. The proposal implies you can register your magazines using the assault weapon process, but does not explicitly state this and the information required for the certificate application doesn't appear to apply to magazines. This may be an outright ban. Rim fire pistols are treated the same way as center file pistols in this bill.

The Coming Post-election Push for Gun Control in PA

From this reddit thread:
















































As is pointed out in the thread, the only poll that matter is on Tuesday, but the predictions aren't encouraging for gun rights.

Relevant thread from PAFOA with additional information about the issues and a planned protest in Harrisburg.

The shockingly simple math behind time off...

Advocates of socialism often tout how generous government-mandated paid leave is in socialist-leaning countries. France, for example, mandates a minimum of 36 paid vacation days per year. In this post, I argue that this benefit simply trades flexibility for rigidity when compared to the US. However, that flexibility in the US requires an ingredient in short supply: Personal responsibility.

In the US, the 4 percent rule of thumb is often applied to determine the amount of funds required to last a thirty-year retirement with no active income (income earned through working). Essentially, if you need $40,000 a year to live in retirement that means you need to save $1,000,000 in diversified stocks and bonds to have a reasonable shot at your funds lasting for 30 years of no income. Let's be more conservative and use 3 percent: Our retiree needs more like $1,400,000 saved to retire.

Assume our retiree started saving at 22 years old and made a salary that remains at exactly $80,000 their entire career. In reality, this salary is easily obtained for a present day retiree-to-be that's willing to start a career in an in-demand field (their choice!), and can grow well beyond that figure. Assuming a 25% tax rate, this individual can save $18,000 a year assuming they spend $42,000 each year. This is a reasonable spend rate considering the retirement goal, better learn to stick to the expected budget early! This individual has saved enough to retire by age 52 based on a reasonable Monte Carlo simulation.

Assuming our retiree is a man, his life expectancy is 78 years according to the World Bank. Due to his diligent saving, he can enjoy 26 years of not having to work for money. This assumes no gap in employment, but, hey, his income also never grew so we'll call it a wash! It's also reasonable to expect no major employment gap considering he chose a high demand field of employment. This retirement has a very high probability of success given that we are shooting for less than 30 years of retirement and chose a conservative 3% withdrawal rate.

Let's image an average Frenchman. In France he can retire by 62, but only assuming he worked for a minimum of 42 years. If our Frenchman started working at 22, he can't retire until age 64! Since his life expectancy is 82 years, that leaves 18 years to not work. But wait, don't forget he gets 5 work weeks off a year! That's (42 * 5) / 52 = 4 years off while working.

Our US retiree has the ability to enjoy 26 years of not working while our Frenchman gets 22 years. But wait, there's more!

- The US retiree will likely be able to retire even earlier assuming income growth that keeps up with inflation (assume 3%). This one tweak allows the US retiree to quit paid work at 42 instead of 52. That's 10 extra years of retirement! What's better, 36 years of no work or 22? 36 years is longer than the 30 year horizon, but we also dropped the withdrawal rate a solid percent to be more conservative.

- Given his choice to work in a high demand field, the US retiree will likely be able to command no less than 3 weeks off a year if my own career trajectory has any say in the matter. (20 * 3) / 52 = 1 additional year off in his 20 years of employment (assuming the pay increases). That's a total of 37 years of not working!

- Our US retiree leaves the workforce early enough to avoid most age-related health issues. How many years of good health does our 62 year old Frenchman have left?

What are the primary differences? The US individual isn't taxed to death and can choose to stop working whenever he can live on his savings without risk to a pension. Notice that these calculations assume all savings were after tax. Those funds aren't locked up in a traditional 401k or IRA. In reality, our retiree seems smart enough to build a portfolio with tax diversity (e.g. some funds in tax advantaged accounts and others in taxable accounts).

However, the US individual must diligently save and control spending (buy less shit, save more -- good for the environment, good for you!), which requires real personal responsibility. This implies traits we might miss in some socialists.

Latte Liberalism and Cognitive Bias

This 4^th of July I found myself asking an obvious question, which I'm sure many in the pro-rights community have already asked themselves. How is it that so many anti-gun people could be celebrating a holiday that's based on a war waged by citizens who refused to disarm?

Hypocrisy is usually never intentional, so how is that they overlook such an obvious fact? This led me to an article by a psychology professor who threw his two cents into the gun debate, where he discussed cognitive bias. This is where your own experiences or perception of events will drive decision making, even if not backed by evidence or hard facts. Example: “I personally have never felt unsafe in my home. I have never viewed the actions of my government to be tyrannical. Therefore these threats aren't real enough to be concerned with, and nobody else should feel otherwise unless they're just paranoid.” A different perspective doesn't become rational in ones eyes until it's experienced.

This circles back to a previous blog I've written discussing socialism. “No guns” and “economic equality” might sound good for those that have viewed school shootings or poverty on the news, but the negative aspects of what they're asking for haven't been felt.

A psychologist would need to explain it, but I find it difficult to understand why you would have to personally experience something for it to become “real”. How are lessons in history not real enough? The only thing I can think of is that there's always a way to reinterpret the story or realign it with the position you've already decided to take. Taking the earlier point of our Independence Day being a celebration of citizens waging an armed revolt against tyranny, one opposed to gun rights might say “Armed citizens didn't win the war, though. The French government intervened and won it for us.” This is called “proof texting” or “confirmation bias”, where details of a story or well established facts can be twisted for your own narrative and make you feel better about the decision you've already made.

These biases fuel the modern Latte Liberalism that has swept into our politics. Comfort and complacency leave many to overlook the value of individual liberty, and the importance of the 2^nd Amendment that at one time was viewed as a necessity. Sipping on a watered down, overpriced beverage during a day off from work they ponder solutions to societies remaining problems, while completely failing to appreciate their own quality of life and how it was achieved. The pleasure of a “warm and fuzzy” feeling from speaking out on behalf of those less fortunate blinds them to the reality that they are a beneficiary of the very system they've begun to oppose. Overstepping the lessons of history, they gleefully march towards the repeatable offenses and mistakes made by others.

In a euphoric state of self-righteousness, the “flaws” of individual liberty and personal accountability are somehow expounded as threats to equality and human rights. The ideals that have offered them opportunity and protection from oppression, become twisted and viewed as chains that have shackled progress. The very document that guarantees our freedoms through limitations of government is viewed as outdated and an embarrassment.

The aforementioned biases and latte liberalism are a combination that share the effects of a hallucinogenic drug, where it leaves those taking a dose to live in an alternate reality. History and hard facts need to be used to help restore American politics to centrism and away from the sharp turns it has been taking... because after 242 years of independence, it turns out that the greatest risks to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are revisionism and memory loss.

Socialism and Discrimination: An incompatibility with the Bill of Rights

Younger generations have always had that group trying to be “edgy” with their support for socialism, but it's becoming more mainstream in liberal politics. You have viable socialist leaning presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, a full blown socialist in the Seattle city council, and democratic socialists running unopposed for legislative seats in several states.

To be fair, I don't think of socialists as red devils running around with a nefarious agenda, or just crying for “free” stuff because they're too lazy to work. Their intentions are legitimately noble, wanting to establish equality by giving everyone the same access to life's necessities regardless of differences such as demographics or economic class. The idea of achieving equality and putting safety nets in place affords everyone the chance to live their lives mostly worry free.

In application, however, socialism devolves into exactly the kind of system they'd claim to be championing against. Their naivety conveniently overlooks that in practice socialism's objective of establishing equality ends up being achieved through a sadistic elimination of those very differences that a free society can learn to value and appreciate.

A hard pill to swallow: Socialism is one of the most discriminatory examples of governing there is, as it is required in order for the model to survive. It requires like-minded thinking that shares the same goals and collective thought process in order to be achievable, which necessitates state sanctioned discrimination to preserve sustainability.

Consider this - The only successful models of socialism, such as the Nordic Model, have been in homogeneous societies lacking diversity and multiculturalism. Take Norway as an example:

Ethnicity: 91.5% white (83.2% being specifically Norwegian)

Religion: 71.5% Lutheran (another 6.7% being other Christian)

Urbanization: 81% urban population

Religion being one of the biggest factors, as Martin Schroder argues “Lutheranism promotes the idea of a nationwide community of believers and it promotes state involvement in economic and social life. This allows nationwide welfare solidarity and economic coordination”. Immigration also being key, as (despite some rhetoric) Europe in general is fairly xenophobic in comparison to the United States.

In more diverse societies, sustainability of socialism becomes far more complex as compliance isn't naturally afforded like you would find in one where ideals are mostly shared. In order for the model to survive you have two options – become selective with who can be apart of your society, or use force and manipulation to gain compliance. This leads to common traits or practices found in these systems of government:

-Heavy censorship

-An information bottleneck through nationalized networks

-Suppression of organized religion operating without state sponsorship

-Violent elimination of political opposition

-Labor Camps or Gulags

-Civilian disarmament

This requirement for selectiveness and compliance was also learned repeatedly on a smaller scale during the 1960's and 70's with hippie communes. Open admission and group infighting were the leading causes for financial ruin and failure. Taking the longest self-sustaining secular community in North America as an example – the Twin Oaks Community – their system has required rigid rules, labor requirements, and selective membership. There's further examples of writers providing personal tales living in communities, where they discuss the rigid life style and removal of folks with mental illness. Other longer running examples could include monks and monasteries, that are sustainable through like-minded religious faith and strict order. My favorite example being Dieter Duhm who had become disillusioned with socialist communities, as they ultimately failed for being far too open and indiscriminate in invitation.

Efforts to mix socialism into a free society are just disasters in the making. Why? Well, you have the above examples of what happens when people fail to contribute... but there's also the problem of having people like me that are vehemently opposed and will fight your policy tooth and nail to ensure you don't force something on me that I don't want. That ultimately means most efforts for creating socialist policies are doomed to failure with heavily flawed legislation and little cooperation to keep it afloat. Take the Affordable Care Act as an example. If this were in a society where everyone generally thinks the same, this is something that could have been tweaked and perfected (or just completely shifted to universal healthcare). However, in a society where everyone thinks differently, this legislation was born without a chance for survival. It was severely flawed, and rapidly became unsustainable without collective cooperation for a solution to fix it.

You place these examples on a grander scale, and you see why multicultural socialist governments become oppressive over time in order to maintain their system. The model can't afford to have people like me in it, therefore the only option is to exclude me or force my compliance. Forced compliance has been the trend, which is why most socialist takeovers follow a formula of *Step A) Revolution, Step B) Take away the guns, Step C) Run the propaganda machine*

All this considered, people are oblivious to that fact that identifying as a “democratic socialist” means you're a walking oxymoron. Rights you'd expect in a free and fair society can't sustainably coexist with collectivism in a place that boasts significant diversity.

A Myth For Justifying Regulation

When trying to push unconstitutional gun control legislation, it's common for advocates to perpetuate a myth that just won't seem to go away:

“Even the first amendment is regulated! You can't falsely yell “fire” in a theater!”

First off, lets ignore the fact that the 2^nd Amendment is already the most heavily regulated right we have.

But yes, the 1^st Amendment is regulated, but not in the way these folks claim it is. The truth can be summarized as “you don't have the right to victimize others”. For example, you cannot use free speech to commit libel, defamation, or perjury. You can, however, yell fire in a theater and it not be a crime. For it to be a crime, you would have to incite chaos or a disturbance where people, property, or business are harmed.

The point is that there are no words, terms, phrases, etc. that are illegal. It's someone/something being victimized that is... That does not justify banning specific firearms or making it nearly impossible to exercise your right to own or carry one. To draw a comparison to 1^st Amendment regulation, it would only justify limiting you from shooting an innocent person (already illegal!). The act of simply owning or carrying a firearm (of any type) does not have any negative affect on anyone or anything. It would require specific actions to do so.

Do Something(TM) vs. #DoSomething vs F@#$ing Doing Something

There's political motivation behind a lot of the debate and strategy … but do some solutions really need to be political or have an agenda?

-Do Something(TM): This is a political tactic, and a Twins of Liberty brainchild that acknowledges the guns rights community has not been proactive and been caught off-guard by the anti-rights movement. The idea is that gun control measures are emotionally driven by sensationalism in liberal media that's backed by billionaire Bloomberg, and people act as sheep by being coaxed into temporarily wanting this restriction placed in their lives. One of their motivators is the idea that they're the only ones offering a solution to an ongoing problem... which is kind of true, because all the guns rights community has offered is angry dissent, rather than their own ideas. Do Something(TM)'s premise is to offer legitimate alternatives in order to expand discussion beyond gun control measures. Turning it into a discussion counters the passionate wave the gun control movement relies on, and acts as a delay tactic for measures that are intended to strip us of our rights. It's a win-win approach that prevents stupid laws AND supports credible solutions.

-#DoSomething: An agenda, not a movement. This is not about actual solutions, but taking advantage of an opportunity granted by the death of children to pursue a gun ban. They don't care about actually protecting schools and decreasing violence. A real movement would be proposing a hundred valid solutions, yet they're only pursing one flawed idea. In fact, here's a good example of them ridiculing a perfectly legitimate security practice because it doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to produce - Texas official blames school shooting on too many exits and entrances. They took the Lt. Governor of Texas out of context, and made him sound like a complete fool. Controlled access points into buildings that can be monitored and have random bag searches is a well established practice in nearly every major office or government building. The idea of armed security or teachers is also treated as a joke, as if somehow active self-defense is more ridiculous than lying in a fetal position kissing your ass goodbye when faced with a threat. The fact they'll try to discredit valid solutions is proof of what they really care about.

One of the things that has me beating my head into the wall is “How do they get away with blocking actual solutions, yet still rally people under a #DoSomething banner?” The fact is, the typical liberal is not the intellectual that they pretend to be. They're very shallow and concerned about an image, which has to do with the fact that its majority is a younger demographic (I was even one of them before shifting towards libertarian ideology as I matured). They have excellent marketing that sells an image of being the good guys... being the ones with the only solution, being the ones that care, and holding a moral high ground. Image trumps actual logic and reason.

-F@#$ing Doing Something: This is one of my frustrations... We have easy ways to fix this. We could stop sensationalizing these actions in order to prevent copy cats that want to be immortalized. We could put School Resource Officers in every school, or train teachers that are willing to be armed if funding is an issue. But what about solutions that fall completely within the control of our own households?

I can't ignore the fact that irresponsible gun owners contribute to the problem. We're all quick to criticize someone in a picture that isn't practicing trigger discipline, or muzzling their friends in a video... but we don't say anything to those folks in our lives who we know keep a loaded gun in their closet that's accessible to a child. I don't care how well trained you THINK your children are, they shouldn't be anywhere near a gun without direct supervision. It's negligence to not lock up your firearms. Does punching in a digital combination add a few seconds to your reaction time for home defense? Sure. But is it logical to introduce a new threat in order to counter another? The added reaction time is worth the elimination of this realistic consequence. It's a fact accidents and many mass shootings could have been prevented with parents using a gun safe that their children don't have access to. F@#$ing do something to ensure it's not your child shooting up a school.

It's different after Santa Fe...

... because the parameters are all wrong. Look around. There are ten dead and ten injured from an attack on a school. The attacker unsuccessfully planted bombs and copied other Columbine elements. Yet the royal wedding is at the top of the headlines. The usual suspects have seemingly nothing to say. Some people in the gun rights crowd are trying to make hay out of Esquire going full gun grab, but come on, they were blatanly pro-repeal years ago.

After Parkland you couldn't go anywhere without hearing about it. Social media was full of people tripping over themselves to support confiscation afterwards.

This is the best evidence I've seen yet that:

• Gun grabbers don't cares about dead children unless the story is politcally convenient
• The media is required to make people care about the gun grabbing cause
• People are sheep with generally no opinions outside of those handed down from above
• Smoke screens work, doesn't matter what form they come in

Got any more of them royals to marry off?

The bar for labeling one's self a firearm "expert" is stunningly low

Fake firearms experts lurk in many forums and newspaper editorial sections. Here's one in the form of a likely unemployable liberal arts graduate at the time* former US Army Reserve Intel analyst. Mr. Diamond feels his unimpeachable credentials provide great sway to his opinion. Unfortunately, his opinion is that the dictatorial (and often completely asinine) rules imposed on military personnel are proof US firearms laws are not restrictive enough for civilians.

I am sure his shooting resume is quite impressive. After all, the annual** break from shuffling papers at a desk can't be his only firearms experience. Right? He seems pretty confident!

In a way, the number of fake firearms experts is a good thing. This is a sign that firearms are still ubiquitous enough that it's normal for many people to be exposed to them. A small percentage of those people will convince themselves this exposure makes them an expert. A small percentage of those fakes will write absurd articles for media editorial sections.

I just wish they'd shut up already.

* Yes, this is super snarky. Sorry, everyone I knew from my time as an officer candidate (see, I am an "expert" too!) that ended up in Intel had unemployable degrees in the civilian world. Imperfect sample size, but my blog.

** I am not sure what it is for the Army, only the Navy.

It's Time for Something(TM)

I believed in the power of doing something(TM) long before the inagural post to this blog. Given another mass shooting at a school, it's once again an opportune time to push something that won't hurt our constitutional rights as fast as we possibly can. What to do?

It's obvious this time. SRO's work. An SRO got the job done in Dixon, IL a few days ago. SROs have done the job in the past. There are plenty of reasons to believe an SRO or another good guy with a gun will successfully get the job done in the future.

I am ready to get behind a school security spending bill. I hardly care what's in it as long as it doesn't compromise our rights. It does need to provide cover to prevent the serious attempt at a gun grab that's mere hours away. Federal funding for SROs is a possibility.

There are about 98,271 schools in the United States. Assuming it costs about $100,000 a year to pay, equip, train, etc. an average law enforcement officer, we could place an officer in every school for about $9.8 billion. That's about 1.5% of the DoD budget proposed for 2019 earlier this year. Certainly Democrats can get behind spending a mere 1.5% of the DoD's budget to create 98,271 strong union jobs to protect the children?

If they poison it with a gun grab or refuse to play ball, there is plenty there to make hay with.

Not willing to go that far? Fine, provide a smaller pool of funding for security spending as districts see fit. I am cool with that too.

Remember, after Parkland the House GOP refused to consider new gun control proposals because they already passed FixNICS. Friends, that's a successful smoke screen! We can do that again without eroding gun rights.

The Court of Public Opinion

On May 10^th, 2018 Emm poised the question “Which amendment would die after the second?”. He cited the 5^th amendment, however I'd propose this one is already effectively diminished. As one of our most valuable rights due process establishes the requirement of being innocent until proven guilty, but the close-minded mob that has entrenched itself in the internet and social media has almost effectively negated this. An accusation backed by a wall of text or a series of posts is all that's needed for a conviction. No evidence, no trial, no objective process for confirming guilt. We collectively read a story that appears to have merit and credibility, and attack with torches and pitchforks until a life is ruined. Is there evidence that has been properly and lawfully gathered, then systematically processed and reviewed by attorneys and judges qualified to do so? No one cares. They read what they want to without a sense of skepticism, and predetermine the outcome of ending careers, destroying families, and imprisoning the population based on beliefs that are void of facts! Worse yet, those in the judicial system cave to this peer pressure in order to preserve their own careers. It has become a repeat of 1950's McCarthyism, but without any clear opposition to end the practice.

Why is that? I believe it's like Roman gladiatorial combat. It's not about justice, but instead people enjoying bloodshed as a sick form of entertainment. We don't care about real justice, we just enjoy others experiencing misery that's worse than our own. This small minded mentality ignores that YOU could be the next man in the arena.

Is our Constitution Outdated?

Certainly depends on who you ask... If you were talking to a left-leaning hipster, they'd probably tell you it's 250 year old trash written by a group of slave owning racists and misogynists. They'd tell you the times and technology have moved beyond what the document can be interpreted and adapted to, and get annoyed how people hide behind it in order to stonewall their perception of “progress”. Conversely, if you were talking to a right-leaning Budweiser King, they'd probably tell you it's second in perfection to the almighty Christian Bible and should be treated as unquestionable gospel. They'd tell you it's not only worth fighting and dying for, but it should be forcefully spread to every corner of the globe...

I believe there's truth somewhere in the middle. Not one blinded with patriotism that's indoctrinated with dangerous nationalism, or one that has a statist obsession with achieving Utopian dreams through expansive government and tyrannical legislated “perfection”.

The constitution is an imperfect document, written by flawed men whom had a unique perspective of having to risk everything for what they were about to create. Intended to secure liberty for the people who wrote it, it has evolved over time with amendments that have both improved and weakened it. These changes have made it more inclusive to every one of our citizens (15^th and 19^th amendments), yet also has a history of changes that are regressive for individual liberty (16^th and 18^th amendments). The fundamentals, however, were carefully crafted with an acknowledgment of government being something that's necessary yet inherently evil. This framework defined limitations, checks and balances, and the role it's expected to play. It also ensured specific rights and protection for the people in order to place further checks on our government (2^nd, 5^th and 14^th amendments)

One thing we'll have to accept though, is that it's impossible to make it perfect. We live in a very diverse and opinionated society that'll never fully agree on what perfection really is. For example, my view of perfection would involve a document that specifies the exact roles of government and limits them to a very narrow list of functions they're allowed to perform. Its function should be no more than ensuring its citizens right to live a life free and unmolested of harmful or oppressive actions. However, I'm enough of a realist to know that what I just wrote would give an aneurysm to someone who would measure success in the number of new laws created each year. My point being that not allowing one specific agenda to completely overrule the other is a compromise. The alternative would be an Ochlocracy (tyranny by the majority) where we force others to live in our ideal world.

Should we accept it as good enough? I believe we've found a balance that more or less works for our specific culture. It's not impossible to correct major discrepancies or injustices, but adds layers of difficulty to enacting ridiculous sacred cows. The layers of difficulty tend to be the major frustration for those ridiculing the constitution as outdated, but there's a simple argument for why difficulty is important. As the power of government changes hands frequently, you won't always have your side as the majority. It's what prevented George W. Bush from ultimately banning gay marriage, or Barack H. Obama from defining healthcare as a rigid collective obligation, or more recently stonewalled left-wing activists from removing one of our most significant rights. The major con to this system is the never ending political drama, as no one side can ever be a clear winner and controversial issues are never fully put to rest. My view may be seen as complacent... but we have a comment section below, and I challenge you to suggest any major changes to our constitution that would improve our system of government without alienating those outside your ideology.

Prefatory clauses are hard

But, but, well regulated militia! If only there were documents from the time period of the founding that were not so maddenly "confusing"!

Here is a copy of the Pennsylvania constitution from the same time period: http://www.duq.edu/assets/Documents/law/pa-constitution/_pdf/constitutions/1790/const-1970-pa-archives-vol10.pdf. Note Article IX Section 21:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be reconized and unalterably establed, WE DECLARE,

(snip 20 sections)

Section 21. That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Clear enough.

Note that this was ratified in an "ethnically and religiously diverse" state: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pennsylvania-ratifies-the-constitution.

Which amendment would die after the second?

My guess is the fifth. Short-sighted tyrants don't care about: (1) rights they don't exercise and (2) rights they don't think they'll benefit from. Know many short-sighted tyrants that think they could be accused of an infamous crime?

The Constitution and Monotonicity

Whenever people observe that the constitution is a living document my head goes straight to a useful engineering condition: monotonicity.

Monotonicity refers to a condition whereby a function can vary by increasing or decreasing but not both. A monotonically increasing function's output always grows or stays the same, it never decreases. The opposite is true of a monotonically decreasing function. Monotonicity is useful, for example, in computer science because it helps us establish guarantees about how an algorithm behaves (e.g. when describing an algorithm's efficiency).

I'd prefer it if the constitution were a living document where variances in rights are monotonically increasing. You can add rights or you can tweak wording, but you cannot decrease the sum total of rights (call this total liberty). Want to take rights away? Go play in traffic.

A complication: What if slavery were a constitutional right? Perhaps we can agree that the sum total of "rights", however we quantify it, increases by ending slavery. When it comes to the second amendment, what about the "right" to live? I don't consider this a right. No one can guarantee the positive (that you get to live), only the negative. A "right" that cannot come with some degree of a positive guarantee is worthless.

Worthless, like any right in a "living document" that can change without resistance and for better or worse at the will of short-sighted tyrants.

I love the 2nd Amendment... but not necessarily its supporters.

Recently I wrote a piece titled “Gun Rights Supporters Are Losing The War on Guns . . . Here’s Why”. It more or less focused on the overall effectiveness of the two movements, but there's one specific point that was vastly overlooked – being good ambassadors.

For the most part I consider gun owners to be well-rounded, even-keeled, and a respectable bunch that keep to themselves... but then there's that vocal group that you really wish would just find a hole and stay in it. Seriously, have you ever read the comments section of an article related to gun control? My forehead is bruised from all the face-palming. It's not just because I'm rolling my eyes at ignorant “full semi-automatic” or “weapons of war” comments coming from the anti-rights crowd, but because I'm ashamed of what the people on my own side are saying. The best analogy I can give for debating gun control advocates while surrounded by some 2A supporters, is it's like taking a girl you eventually want to marry to a family reunion full of drunk, raunchy Uncles. You're trying to make a valid and persuasive point, but instead get drowned out by a carnival sideshow of fist pumping hillbillies.

It doesn't take long before you read tin foil hat conspiracies involving an inevitable violent uprising and revolution in response to an article about Dick Sporting Goods. Or someone being a complete racist by slamming immigrants and a specific ethnicity in an article about student walkouts. You're not convincing anyone of anything. Instead you're feeding the stereotype that we're some kind of looneytoon characters, and giving validity to the argument for the instability of gun owners... you sure showed them, Hoss!

Here's a couple tips...
-Keep the “red meat” canned. Do you know what “red meat” is? It's a bunch of tough guys screaming “not one inch!” or “my cold dead hands!”... It's rousing and fuel for the people that care for it, but offers little substance for anyone that doesn't already belong to your gun club. Taking the opportunity to be persuasive and allow intelligent discord to sway an opinion requires patience and some manners, but it's worth it. 

-We are a nation of immigrants that benefits from our diversity, and don't forget it. Using them as some kind of scapegoat for the war raged against the 2nd Amendment makes you sound like an ignorant old coot, and alienates demographics that should be on our side. Anyone feeling oppressed should easily be convinced of the value of the 2nd Amendment. They all vote Democrat? Maybe it's because their party has been welcoming!

-Your opinion of imminent civil unrest is a fringe conspiracy. This country is far too wealthy and content in most areas to lose their shit over “brick by brick” gun control measures. Stop pushing the theory that we're all a bunch of angry, paranoid, trigger happy gun nuts. We all do have our breaking point, but we're not even close to that yet. While the ability to put the government in check is a corner stone of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't need to be used as a daily threat to left leaning groups.

-Stop acting like being a veteran some how makes your opinion matter more than the next guys. “Well, I'm an Army veteran and...” Cool story, bro. Thanks for letting me know you were in the branch with the lowest ASVAB requirement. Seriously though, I think a good portion of us are active duty or veterans. That in no way means you're enlightened or somehow more important than the person you're talking to. Stop trying to use your service as a trump card, because all you're doing is embarrassing the rest of us that served with you.

-Childish insults like “snowflake” and trashing millennial's might make you feel better after you've gotten it off your chest, but you just shit all over the rest of us that actually want to win this war being raged against our rights. Acting like a fool will only harden the resolve of someone you've pissed off, and again alienates a demographic that we should be welcoming to our cause.

-Your actions reflect on all of us, so please don't bring us all down with your open carry protests. One thing we can all obviously agree on is how emotions are powerful and persuasive. So how is walking down a sidewalk with your AR-15 over your shoulder like some kind of fashion statement helping? Do you really think a naive suburban family will walk by you thinking “Wow, look at that fine and well-adjusted gentleman!”? The reality is that the only positive reaction you'll garner will be from the most ardent 2A supporters, and the rest will range from simply thinking you're a douche to being completely afraid of you. Great! Now they relate gun owners to that negative emotion they felt from that interaction. Your gun is a tool, not an stylish accessory... so show it appropriate respect, and allow it to be used effectively with an element of surprise by having it properly concealed.

I truly believe the vast majority of gun owners are the reasonable ones in this fight. They've chosen a side based on lessons from history, and can formulate logical arguments in favor of our cause that don't need an emotionally plagued campaign that relies on exploiting vulnerable children to win. Those of you on the sidelines with innovative ideas and points to offer need to speak up. Those of you hurting our cause need to change tactics, or bow out and let the adults do the talking. You may never fully convince someone to be a turncoat and change sides, but we can at least get them to second guess themselves and drop the fight against our rights.

You're represented by reps that aren't in your district

Joshua Prince recently reminded us that representatives will "represent" you when it's to their advantage even if they aren't your district's rep. In particular, anti-civil rights PA state representatives have recently claimed they've heard no objections to gun control proposals discussed in the judiciary committee.

Really? They have heard not one objection to gun control proposals from anyone in the state? Or do they really mean they've heard no objections from their district? Of course, why state a realistic scope when you can obfuscate and imply the entire state agrees with you in abstract.

I bring this up because it provides an interesting scoping challenge when it's time to contact your reps. Who are your reps? Well, there are literally assigned reps for your district, but there are also reps that are not assigned to your district that make decisions that impact your life. While it may not count for as much, I contact reps assigned to my district and neighboring districts for the following reasons:

• It's easy. Dom Costa's primary office is a trivial bike ride from my house. I am not in his district, but it costs me nothing to walk into his office and make a statement. I can pump out a letter as long as this post in about 15 minutes. Calling is even easier; I do that in less time than it takes me to bicycle to the office. If reps will represent me in sweeping remarks I can raise my voice even if the impact is tiny (marginal gains are meaningful in aggregate!).
• Reps and their staff are paid for by my tax dollars even if they aren't assigned to my district. Many of them couldn't function if they were dependent solely on revenue from their own districts. I don't feel bad about taking up a few minutes of their time because I paid for it.
• Sometimes my representative doesn't get a say. My assigned representative is not on the judiciary committee. In this particular case, the judiciary committee closed themselves to public comment (I wonder why!). How else will my voice be heard by the committee?

Example Cottage Industries

As banks turn on the gun industry, where will the gun industry turn? A plausible answer is to evolve into a cottage industry. Successful cottage industries exist even in heavily regulated sectors.

Here are some examples of successful cottage industries:

Ultralight Backpacking

For most of the last two (three?) decades if you wanted lightweight backpacking gear you had to find small, often one person, operations making it. Some of these companies eventually grew to become mid-sized companies (e.g., https://mountainlaureldesigns.com/, https://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com/, etc.). Still others grew to become industry giants (e.g., Osprey Packs, MSR, etc.).

Homebuilt Aircraft

The aerospace sector is heavily regulated but there is still a cottage industry catering to those that want to build their own aircraft (e.g., Airdrome Aeroplanes and other EAA-listed manufacturers). These companies will likely never be major players, but they are successful and keep up with demand in their geographic regions.

Subsets of the Firearms Community 

The firearm training community is full of small one-person shows. Even large training organizations (e.g. Gunsite Academy) tend to not be that big in the grand scheme of things. This is also largely true in the world of gunsmithing.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Cottage companies will often customize individual orders. Buy a gun from a large manufacturer and you're stuck with what you get from the manufacturer or whatever the aftermarket has contributed.
• Cottage companies innovate faster. Large outdoor companies are just now catching up to where ultralight cottage companies were more than a decade ago.
• Cottage companies are more willing to take risk. I don't see Ruger or Smith and Wesson accepting cryptocurrencies any time soon (ever?). According to CoinDesk, who discussed with Cody Wilson, 10% of Defense Distributed's revenue was in the form of bitcoins last year.
• Cottage companies aren't beholden to government contracts. The government often won't award them contracts anyway.
• Cottage industries are distributed. While this doesn't stop the government from clamping down, it does make it harder for the current wave of private virtue signaling to be successful.

Cons:

• Cottage companies often don't have the stock to ship quickly, particularly if they are popular. You can end up spending 6+ weeks waiting for an item to ship.
• Cottage companies are more susceptible to going out of business or shutting down for other reasons. Who will fix your gun when the small manufacturer that made it no longer exists? This may create more opportunity for gunsmiths. (Even if the manufacturer is in business they are more likely to charge for any repairs.)
• Cottage companies tend to try to fix mistakes but are less likely to take returns. Particularly if the item was customized.
• Cottage companies innovate faster. This is a pro, but also a con because there can end up being a large number of "versions" of a cottage company's products in the wild.
• Cottage companies make buying decisions harder. You end up having to spend more time finding companies and researching the companies themselves as well as their products. Having said that, popular small companies seem to always pop-up that are well known enough to be a "slam dunk" for new customers in the space.

Marty Hayes Proposal: American Coalition To Stop School Shootings

In the March 2018 edition of the Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network Journal, Marty Hayes writes:

Third suggestion: The firearms industry could take it upon itself to help provide security, weaponry and training for volunteer or paid staff at schools. I suggest calling it the American Coalition To Stop School Shootings (ACTSSS). How would this work? Each firearms-related business or organization would contribute 1% of their gross revenues to a tax exempt charitible foundation, the mission of which would be to provide funding to help school districts arm and train volunteers and even to hire paid security. If each large corporation and large gun rights organization would pledge only 1% of their gross reciepts (sic), enough money would be raised to accomplish a great effort.

 He follows up in the April edition:

After publishing my commentary last month, I received 25 separate responses, and most were in support with some very helpful additional suggestions. At some point, I will organize this valuable input and put your responses into a cogent compilation. In the meantime, I will be looking at ways to take the idea to the next step. I would like to see an industry leader or two embrace the idea and take it forward. Frankly, I do not have the ability to build the American Coalition To Stop School Shootings–ACTSSS–alone. Others who have a passion to make it happen are needed to take the idea and run with it. If you or anyone you know has any contacts in the industry that might want to get involved, please contact them and run it by them. I do not expect to let the idea languish, but I also don’t want to try single-handedly to get it going and have it fail for lack of momentum.

I am not sure how you herd those cats, but it's an interesting idea. Many industries self-regulate or band together to solve problems before the government steps in and turns one problem into dozens.

Pretendicipation

Today Sebastian at pagunblog posted a list of factors working against gun rights. One of his listed reasons calls out millennials, something he has done twice today:

Our activists are getting old and tired. They are not being replaced by people with youthful energy. If you look at analysis of the March for your Guns (sic), the other side actually has the same problem. The general trend, if you ask me, is that millennials are far more removed from traditional civic life than past generations. I actually think millennials are more civic minded than my generation, but their views on civic life are very different. They are far less cynical than my generation, but they are also far more naive.

I agree with his statement of the problem. I am not sure I agree with his analysis in the last two sentences, but he also didn't write enough for me to feel like I understand him well enough to agree or disagree. However, as an older millennial I've noticed "pretendicipation" most places in my life.

We were trained to "pretendicipate" from childhood. Gotta get those bullet points for a college application! Mom and dad can't leave you behind while all the other kids are playing three different sports!

"Pretendicipation" is doing enough to claim you participated without feeling like you're lying but doing nothing more. Some examples from my life:

• Throughout high school I participated in a trivia competitions where regional schools would form teams and travel to a single location monthly to compete. I eventually captained my school's team. Most years it was difficult to get anyone to show up for practices. Even when it was easy, most people made no effort to answer questions. Their version of a competition: Get on bus, eat free food, sit around chatting with your friends, get back on bus, and go home. I've since heard this team had to disband due to lack of participation.
• Similarly, in high school I was a member of an honors club for the "bright" kids. This club needed elected club officers. If you were willing to do the work, you were guaranteed a position because no one would run against you. Sure, they'd show up to the minimum required meetings and pseudo-required events, but mostly to hangout with their friends -- not to get anything done.
• In college I was a member of a club that put on various outdoor activities. People would complain if there weren't enough events, but they'd do nothing to help organize them. In fact, many people would show up at activities and then not even bother to help clean up. Why help when you can stand around chatting with friends while other people do the work?
• In graduate school I ran a social organization that put on on-campus happy hours. We could easily get 300+ people to attend. If we asked for volunteers to help organize, 20+ people would email to offer their support. Most of them would show up when it was time to set up. How many would actually do something besides drink free beer and chat with their friends? Maybe two or three. By clean-up time sometimes it was down to me and one other person cleaning up after 300 people. I've since seen some of the pretendicipants put the organization on their LinkedIn as an extracurricular. Years later, this organization has also effectively disbanded.
• I don't have any examples from the workplace that I can find a way to make non-identifying, but it's been no different. Outside of their job role, people will not do extra work. They'll show up to say they participated, but they won't actually do anything.

I don't think there is any easy fix for this. I've often taken leadership roles in groups I've participated in because I wanted to be there and wanted to contribute. (It perhaps helps that my parents didn't force me to do too many activities as a child.) It feels like most people just want to check a box.

Gun Rights Supporters Are Losing The War on Guns . . . Here’s Why

Folks, the era of simply donating money to pro-Second Amendment organizations to preserve our Constitutional rights is over. If you’ve been living under a rock, let me be the first to inform you that a Southern, pro-gun state with a Republican majority just passed gun control laws that even Kalifornistan hasn’t implemented yet. The reason? The anti-rights crowd has finally found a winning strategy, while we’ve been enjoying the status-quo and becoming fat, lazy and entirely too complacent . . .

We’re hardly the only ones with money anymore. The likes of Michael Bloomberg and his cronies now have substantial financial backing to lobby and organize angry mobs in front of our legislatures. More than anything, their formula for this winning strategy has proven to be successful. Here’s what they’ve figured out:
Timing: They understand the American psyche and the short window of opportunity they have to work with. After a major shooting they know they have to act fast – and that they did. Within less than a month, bills were written and laws were passed while the public was still riding an emotional wave. They know time will only allow logic and reason to win the conversation, and prevent their agenda from being accomplished. They don’t let a crisis go to waste.

Exploit the victims: It’s an evolutionary response for anyone to be protective of children. So they plastered them all over 24-hour news networks. Make them talk. Show the same images of them crying over and over again. While the heart strings are being tugged, that’s the time to push the message – this is all because of guns.

Demonize the opposition: They know who their enemy is, and the know how to destroy their credibility. Calling the NRA terrorists, shifting blame for the shooting, claiming blood is on their hands, etc., makes one of our beloved organizations sound pretty ominous to the naive and ignorant. This renders all the money you’re donating mostly ineffective. Nobody running for an election wants to be associated with that, and nobody is going to listen to any valid points it has to make if they think it’s evil.

Organize at the local level: We all saw the bused-in crowds of angry moms and teenagers who drank the Kool-Aid that CNN has been forcing down their throats. They were out in force in Tallahassee, wearing their Bloomberg-purchased orange t-shirts. That’s a powerful image for the easily persuaded, and intimidating to unprincipled politicians that only care about keeping their power and paychecks.

We’ve made our own mistakes. We need to . . .
Think differently: After past victories, we’ve overestimated the influence of stale organizations like the NRA, GOA, NAGR, etc. Their strategies haven’t evolved, and as a result we’ve lost some serious ground to our opposition. Funding campaigns, waiting until a law passes to push a lawsuit, feeding the pro-gun crowd the same old red meat, and encouraging constituents to send the same pre-formatted letters to our congressmen obviously doesn’t work anymore. Don’t get me wrong, they still have value, but it’s simply not enough any more.

See the big picture: I don’t think any of us like the new age restrictions in Florida…but “not liking” and being “motivated” are two clearly different sentiments. We can’t wait until they finally go after something that feels like being touched in the “no-no spot” to get off the couch and make our voices heard. The fact that laws like these were passed in Florida should be an eye-opener for everyone. It’s huge. If we don’t act more responsibly, then we’ll start feeling these deteriorating effects nationwide. This leads me to the next point…

Organize at the local level: This is one area where we’re getting our asses handed to us. Our freedom-loving, individualistic nature hurts our cause when facing down an organized threat. Our Florida brothers and sisters knew what was about to happen, yet they only managed to muster about 200 Second Amendment supporters at their only rally.
We have to understand that it’ll take us working together to match the passion being displayed in our opponents. If we protest, we need local interest in ensuring our numbers accurately represent our population of freedom loving Americans.
One of the biggest things we can accomplish by working in large numbers is to DELAY, DELAY, DELAY! As already mentioned, their formula requires rapid reaction when the moment is right. If we give enough time for logic and reason to prevail, then we can stop unconstitutional laws before they’re even passed and won’t have to fight them in court.

Be good ambassadors: We don’t do our cause any favors the way we go about defending our beliefs in public. Nobody cares about your “ACKCHYUALLY!” comments on the internet. You’re not going to convince anyone to change their minds by belittling them and telling them how much they don’t know about guns.
Things like “open carry protests” only hurt us, especially among those in the public that may be on the fence with this issue. The battle is for “hearts and minds”, so showing how knowledgeable you are only falls on deaf ears. It’s perfectly okay to educate and share an opinion, but please for the love of God don’t fan the flames or troll, because all it does is harm our cause.

Offer effective alternatives: Before the next shooting even happens, these organizations we’ve been funding should already have a package of new legislation that they’re ready to push. If “something” has to be done, let it be on our terms instead of reacting to the oppositions agenda. There’s a laundry list of underlying causes for these shootings, so pick “something” and push it as a solution to drown out the noise of anti-rights protests. As long as we offer “something”, then we can’t be blamed for doing “nothing”.

The civilian disarmament industrial complex is doing a lot better than we are right now. They have a winning strategy, but it’s one that’s not impossible to counter.

Let’s adapt and collectively overcome their efforts to ensure the preservation of our constitutional rights. Start getting involved in local politics, and take the time to collaborate with like-minded people to win over the hearts and minds of the public.

As sad as it is to say, we need to re-educate the public to the values of the Bill of Rights…and we can’t rely solely on the NRA to do it for us.

Diversity and Inclusion Through Focus

Mixing gun rights with every right wing cause is toxic.

Immigration is not killing gun rights. Educate immigrants on those rights and win them to our side.

Healthcare laws are not killing gun rights. If your doctor injects themselves into the gun debate during working hours, get a new doctor because that one isn't a professional.

Net neutrality is not killing gun rights. How did anyone even get to this?

You know what will kill gun rights? Dissuading potential allies by championing unrelated causes they don't agree with.

NRA and GOA should be single issue advocacy groups. When you're advocating for guns, be a single issue advocate. By all means, advocate for other issues you care about too, just don't mix them. When it comes to guns everyone should be welcome. Strike "libtard" from your vocabulary. Treat others with respect.

We need all the friends we can get. Are you winning friends and influencing people?

You don't have a pro-gun rally to attend because YOU haven't organized it

You won't get celebrities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to bus you to a pro-gun rally. You won't get sports teams lending their planes to fly in your friends. You aren't going to be handed a free, billionaire-purchased shirt when you show up.

Welcome to the grassroots side. If you want to rally, put your shoes on, make your sign, and march outside. Call some friends while you're at it. You might be alone at first, but that's no excuse if you really believe in your message.

Lead by doing.

Do Something(TM) That Won't Hurt Constitutional Rights

After every major shooting loud swaths of the country rise up and shout that politicians must do something. The gun rights community hates this. We shout back: Logic! Reason! Avoid emotional actions! Not one more inch! This response is no longer effective. Florida shows us anti-civil rights advocates are now effectively organized, prepared, and capable of achieving gun-owner control - even in ostensibly pro-gun states. Democrats have gone full gun grab and Republicans are picking up the divide and conquer flag.

What can we do? One idea: Copy effective tactics. More specifically:

• Organize gun owners. NRA has an extensive network full of both knowledgeable advocates and gun clubs. Hand pick 10-15 effective gun rights advocates and fly them from gun club to gun club to train local advocacy groups in techniques that work.
• Propose solutions to violence that do not hurt the gun rights cause. Package these proposals in an anti-violence omnibus bill and give it a snazzy name about stopping mass shootings, violence, whatever. Next time our rights are under threat, push this bill as hard as bills will be pushed to further erode our constitutional rights. 

I want to elaborate on the second point. As a community, we are prone to taking any proposal and responding with walls of text that read like they were written by this guy:

This is missing the forest for the trees. We need to buy time to organize gun owners. In the mean time, we need a way to deflect calls to do something that too often result in gun control. What better way than to propose alternative legislation that doesn't hurt our constitutional rights? This gives politicians an alternative, it counters arguments that gun rights groups refuse to act on violence, and it just might win some hearts and minds from the centrist crowd.

What to propose? Good news! We can copy effective tactics again. We do not actually have to be completely convinced our proposals will work, but they must: 1. be something, 2. not hurt our constitional rights, and 3. be serious.

Before you read my ideas, holster your ackchyuallys and re-read the sentence above. Some ideas:

1. Push to decriminalize drugs and improve existing state run rehab facilities.
   
2. Create incentives to enforce laws that are already on the books. Sanction officials that fail to act. Defund agencies that continually fail to act. Spend that money on existing agencies that will.
   
3. Take some of our extremely large military budget and spend it employing veterans as security, civilian firearms trainers, and firearm safety program leaders at the local level.
   
4. Create federal tax credits for gun safes and firearm safety courses.
   
5. Create grants and subsidies for those pursuing education in mental health that agree to spend a designated subset of their time working in underserved communities.

Will these proposals work? Maybe, maybe not. Worst case, they are something(TM). Best case, they actually make the world a better place.

What do you propose?