There is a video that showed up in my suggested videos when I was checking my channel over this evening, and watched it. Personally, I found it to be a very interesting video. Main break down: 3 people were pro-gun, and 3 people were anti-gun. They separated them, asked a question, and if it applied to you, you came forward and spoke about it. They spoke together, it was all very civil, no name calling or accusations. And the selection of people was very varied. This got me to thinking.

Why am I pro-gun? This is a question I get asked all the time. It was asked of me a lot while I stood behind the sales counter in a gun store, especially being a woman standing behind the gun counter. So, I want to answer that question now with a little more detail than I could give face to face. 

Believe it or not, I was not always pro-gun. I won't say I was ever anti-gun, but I was raised differently. I grew up in Jersey City, NJ. My gun safety lessons were non-existent. It was basically, "If you see someone with a gun, they are either a cop or a criminal." I grew up not knowing that civilians were legally allowed to own guns, because that statement was actually made to me by my educators, but also my family. It was a terrible lesson for many reasons. 

Because of that lesson, I took gun violence nonchalantly. When I was around ten years old, we went to my grandmother's house in Philadelphia. My parents had a school reunion to attend, so I was staying with my grandmother for the evening. My grandmother's neighborhood was terrible. There was a known gang house on the block and everything. It was a poverty stricken area and had been since my mom was a kid, but in years leading up to this, it had also become violent. I was never afraid there because I was used to gang activity, but I also knew these people. They did, believe it or not, help take care of my grandmother because she was the only really elderly person on the street. She had gang members that would grocery shop for her and take her to church every morning. 

That particular night, I was watching TV with her when we heard pops. I slid off the sofa and onto the ground, never taking my eyes off the TV screen, and sat there until I heard the sirens. My grandmother, not being able to get on the floor, remained on the sofa. We later found out that there was a woman across the street who's husband shot her dead. She was an exotic dancer, and her husband thought she was offering other services. He was also known to be very physically abusive, and it ended that night. 

I think back on that now, and it saddens me. Those shots didn't bother me. I was sad when I heard the woman died, but I didn't equate that with the gun. But the shots never bothered me. 

That was not my first run in with a gun wielding nut. We saw people laying in the street. I remember coming home one night from a friend's house shortly after I got my driver license and driving past a man laying in the cross walk in an absolute heap, a woman standing over him screaming at the top of her lungs. The park where my soccer games and practices were held was regularly roped off or closed down for body retrieval.

I was five the first time my life was threatened with a gun. I'm not going to get into the story because it was a family member who is still alive, but he was a cop. My mother made a comment about it once and said she was amazed I was not afraid of guns after that. I was, however, completely terrified of police officers until I was almost ten years old. And when I say I was terrified, I mean I ran screaming any time I saw a cop. My mom commented, "Even at that age you knew to blame the person, not the object." 

All of that aside, I was fairly neutral on guns until I moved to North Carolina. I took a job as an armored car guard, and the job required me to carry a revolver. At this point, I had never touched a gun in my entire life. The company put us all in a class and we were taught by a retired Army drill instructor how to care for and shoot a gun. The gun was a flaming dumpster fire. It was a refurbed Ruger GP100, and I think the refurb was done by a blind man with no hands. When it finally stopped working because the firing pin fell out one day, the company refused to get me a new one, but I was still required to qualify with it... somehow. I ended up going out and purchasing my first gun. It was a Sig Sauer P226 in 40SW. Only gun I've ever sold! 

Anyway. I worked that job for three years. I was actually, at one point, thinking about writing a book about that job, but I never did. I had plenty of run ins with people who were just ignorant and more than a few with real malicious intent. But three events while I worked there are what I credit with my swing toward being pro-gun instead of neutral. 

​The first was a robbery. We had a messenger who was just the sweetest man on the face of the planet. He was a real young African American man, just at 21 when he started working there. He's one of those people you didn't want to see at 4:00 in the morning, because he was also smiling huge and was super happy all the time. But he also was the type of person who wouldn't hurt a fly. Well. He was making a stop one day when a serial robber got him. This guy was actually a real issue. He'd gotten one of our actual uniforms and was suiting up and making pick ups at banks. This went on for a while, and when it became obvious that he was getting to a point of arrest, he ditched the uniform and got real brazen. He walked up to this sweet man and put him down fast, taking his bag and running off. The messenger wasn't too badly hurt, but it changed all of us. 

The second was a confrontation with a woman, and I do think this was the real turning point, with the other two events solidifying my stance. I had just finished swapping out an ATM in a big box store when she stormed over to me. She screamed in my face, "Why are you carrying that gun?! That money isn't worth killing someone over!" And the life changing words came out of my mouth as if they were always there. "I'm not carrying the gun to kill someone else. I'm carrying it to stop them from killing me." 

The final event occurred while I was working at the second company, but was not work related. I was actually coming home from work. It was 3:30 in the morning and I was on a main road which was not heavily traveled at that time of the morning. As I was driving, a car came up behind me. He wanted me to go faster, but I already had two speeding tickets in a six month period and wasn't going over the speed limit. I was in the right lane and there was a left lane he could have gone around me in. But that wasn't good enough. He did finally give in and went around me, but I got stuck behind him at a red light. Another car pulled up behind me, a woman was driving, and she was oblivious. She wasn't involved, but because she pulled too far up and was doing everything in her car once stopped besides looking out the window, she didn't see what was happening. 

The guy got out of his car and I thought to myself, "Great. Road rage." He stood up and I realized he was an overweight man standing about 6'5" or so. This was one big dude. As he began walking toward my car, the light hit something and I looked down. In his right hand was a knife. A very big knife. A little larger than a standard Ka-bar. Because of the nature of what I did at that job, I wasn't allowed to carry a cell phone or anything, so I had no phone to call for help. He gets to the side of my car and takes a good crack at my side window. It didn't break. He reared back to take another hit, this time with the handle of the knife, and I didn't even realize what I was doing. He stopped and stood there a moment, hand still raised, staring at me. He waited a good 30 seconds, dropped his hand, and walked slowly back to his car. He got in and ran the light. I finally took a minute to realize I was sitting in the seat, leaning back over my center arm rest, still facing the side window. And that Sig was firmly pointed at the window with my trigger finger up along the slide waiting to get the message to move to the trigger. 

I took off and went to the next open business I could find, which happened to be a hotel. I ran into the lobby and had them call 911. The cops arrived and asked questions, I told them what I could, including the fact that I had drawn my gun. They asked if the guy was shot and I said no. I gave them the magazine to prove all the rounds were still there. The one cop talking to me looked at my uniform and said, "He did all of this with you dressed like that? That man must need a wheelbarrow for his balls." My uniform was almost identical to the one the cops wore - the robin egg blue shirt and a big silver badge. I never even thought about that. That guy had no way of knowing I wasn't a cop, not in that lighting. And he still chose to proceed.

My reason for being pro-gun is myself. I'm not pro-gun because I believe in killing people. I don't carry with the hope of getting into an altercation. I don't want to hurt or kill anyone. But I don't want to die, either. And I believe I have a right to defend myself. And I don't think I should have to explain that. 

Do guns kill? Yes, of course they do. Cars kill, too. "But cars weren't designed to kill!" You are right! They weren't. But more people are killed by them every year than they are by guns. And let's face it, next time you get on the road, how many people do you meet on the road who use their cars like weapons to threaten you into moving faster or just flipping out and driving recklessly because there is a traffic jam or no one is moving fast enough? How many of you know a smaller statured person who drives a big SUV and will readily admit it makes them feel powerful? Your car is a tool, and that tool can be used to transport or it can be used to run down pedestrians. My gun is a tool. It can be used to murder someone or it can be used to stop them from murdering me.  

With the gun control debate in full swing, I have noticed some things. First, a lot of people think banning guns is the magical cure all and the world would be a better place. No thought given to the porous border with drug runners coming through in droves who wouldn't at all mind also doing some gun running. Second, the NRA is somehow a disembodied entity that is working alone to kill American citizens, and we can destroy them by not spending money with companies who give NRA discounts. No consideration to the fact that the NRA is the biggest source of gun safety and education programs, no NRA member has committed a mass shooting but they have stopped some, and no thought that the NRA is kept funded mostly by donations from American citizen members who would be members regardless of discounts. Third, that most people hate these rifles and want them gone. And a lot more, but we'll stop there for now. 

So I wanted to tell you guys a story. As many of you know, I spent seven years working in two different gun stores. This story is from the first store, so let me tell you about it. At the time, it was a rather large store with an indoor shooting range. It was owned by several people, but two of them were active in the business. It was not a chain or big box location, and the focus of the store was shooting sports of all kinds. We really could outfit a shooter for whatever part of the sport or hobby they wanted, and all the people behind the counter had their own expertise. Shoppers quickly figured out which sales person was best for them. And, of course, several of us had overlapping interests. 

I, personally, was into military surplus weapons, but also enjoyed bolt rifles for distance shooting and larger framed handguns. A lot of the collectors and larger game hunters came to me. I was also pretty good at fixing guns and sighting in scopes, so a lot of the hunters brought their rifles to me before hunting season. It was a great way to shoot a lot of calibers for free! Although, truth be told, some of those calibers I never want to see again. I had a guy who hunted in Africa, and his doctor told him he was only allowed a certain amount of time on his rifles every year, so he saved it all for his trips. I was the only one brave enough to shoot his rifles, so I did that every single year until the day I left the store.

Anyway. I started in that store in 2005 and left in 2010. Yes, I was there for the first election of Obama. And that, my dear reader, is the story I want to tell. I got the idea because of several people who said to me, in the last two days, "I never thought about an AR until now."

​Election night came and went. I wasn't sure what to expect when I went in the next day. When I did get there, it was business as usual, and it stayed that way for several days. We all breathed a sigh of relief. Nothing was happening out of the ordinary, aside from the regulars coming in to vent that they were pissed off because the assault weapons ban Bush had let expire was probably going to get put back in place and they needed to talk to like minded folks.

Then... Saturday. 

I arrived at work and my jaw hit the floor boards of my car before I made the turn into the parking lot. The parking lot was jammed. It wasn't a massive parking lot, but it was able to hold about 50 cars. The store owner had roped off a bunch of spots so the employees could park, but every other spot was taken, and cars were parked all over the street. And we watched people coming from the side streets on foot from cars they'd parked elsewhere. There were so many people waiting outside the store, it looked like an arena parking lot for pre-game tailgating. 

I parked and headed for the employee entrance, where one of the larger range officers was guarding the door... because customers were trying to sneak in early through our entrance. That was fun. 

Anyway, fast forward to opening the store, and we actually had to station someone at the front door to let people in as others left because we were over legal capacity for the building. To give you an idea, in the shop itself, the main gun wall was about 75' long. This was not a small store. 

It didn't let up the entire day. At the end of the day, when we finally closed - an hour later than usual because we couldn't get people out of the store - the cashiers counted the cash. The store averaged about $2000 a day minus the shooting range. Sales that day? $63,000. We stood there as they recounted the credit card totals and cash. Then we turned around and looked at the store. Oh. My. God. We were all but cleaned out. There was a shipment coming Monday and for the next several days, but the owner got on the phone and ordered everything she could get her hands on, back ordered or not. People bought everything. We had one of the most extensive knife selections in store out of the entire country. The store actually got featured in a knife magazine, because most shops usually had a few knives here and there, but we had thousands in stock, on hand. It was more than half the store. And the manager who ran the knife side was one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about knives. We often joked that if he didn't have an answer to your knife question, there was no answer. But he stood there that night in shock. Even his knife counter had been hit hard. He sold so many knives he was just about able to stand from exhaustion. 

We still refer to the great Obama rush of '08. I'm not even kidding. 

That kept up for six months solid. It actually killed the store in the end. We kept telling them this was going to die down - we even estimated six months - and things would go back to normal, so the owners should have been hording the cash instead of making it rain, but they chose to make it rain. We got great bonuses out of it, but in the end, the store couldn't survive. At the six month mark, the bottom dropped out. It hit hard. One day we had $60,000 in sales, and literally the next day we didn't have a single customer all day long. A week later, the back orders we'd been waiting on for months all showed up at one time, and we were practically giving away AR15s. No, seriously. You had a choice of buying it at cost or getting a free case of ammo if you took one. 

Anyway. During the six months we were dealing with the rush, I spoke to an awful lot of people. We had a regular trend going on. At one point, we had applications to join the NRA on the sales counter - which we never did, even though we were an NRA certified range - and we ran out of them faster than we got them in. 

The most common statements I heard from non-regulars:

• I never considered buying a gun before, but figured I'd better before I can't anymore.
• Never really saw a need for an AR-15, but I figure I might never be able to buy one again, so I should now. 
• I really don't need all these magazines, but you know they are going to limit the size, so I'm buying as many as I can so I can replace them as they wear out. 

We had an amazing amount of first time gun buyers coming into the store. Most of them had already signed up for a concealed carry class by this point - which is apparently what they did during that calm before the storm - and were there to pick a gun for the class, with the intent of coming back for another after they got the permit (and a lot did). 

​People lined up to use the range where they could rent guns and learn to shoot safely before they decided what to buy. 

People who never wanted an AR15 suddenly wanted one because it might not be an option soon. 

People who had never given much thought to the right to bear arms were suddenly filling out applications to join the NRA on our sales counters. 

People were learning to shoot, and they were buying guns. Some people came back to buy another later on. 

People bought knives because, at the time, knife control was also a hot topic. 

Accessories were hot, too. Especially magazines, but speed loaders were a hot item. People were especially tickled to find out they made speed loaders for revolvers, too. 

Why am I telling you all of this?

Because it needs to be remembered. As we sit back listening to how many people in the USA want gun control and how gun control will solve all our problems, I think back to the Obama rush of '08. Everyone assumed gun control was imminent. Everyone. The Clinton ban wasn't far out of memory at that point, and everyone assumed it was coming back. And the politicians have been trying ever since. 

It didn't spark people cheering for the saving of America by limiting our freedoms. It sparked people who had never owned guns or even thought about owning a gun to go buy a gun. It sparked people who never really wanted an AR15 to go get one because it might not be an option if they changed their mind one day. Obama was elected with the people knowing he was in support of strict gun control, and that lead a lot of people to believe that we all wanted gun control. But we didn't. And those six months will remain stained in my mind for eternity. I've never seen anything like it. 

But I can tell you this. In 2010, I left that store and went to a new one for two years. So I was there almost until Obama was elected again (I ran for the hills before the 2012 election). Every single time a politician even looked in the general direction of a gun bill, people flooded those stores like the end was near. That first six months was steady. But we learned to follow the news and brace for impact, because the hordes came every time there was a mass shooting, because sweeping gun control was assumed. So the gun runs did keep up, but they became more sporadic. 

After my time behind the counter, I went back to being a customer, but still had friends behind the counter. Yes, it kept up like that for the entire 8 years Obama was in office. More guns got sold under Obama than anyone can imagine. The cries for gun control did nothing but put more guns in the hands of American citizens. Yes, I'm sure plenty of those people kept voting for people who wanted to take those guns away. But the fact remains... a lot more people are gun owners now than were at the start of 2008. 

When Trump was elected, the media touted the fact that gun sales had dropped off. Of course they had. He wasn't an anti-gun president. But any time gun control is mentioned, there is a spike in sales again. Now that Trump is talking about some new gun laws, you may see another spike. You may even see another rush. I don't have many friends behind the counter anymore, but I may start doing some in person research. I'm not personally in the market, but research calls, right? 

The cries for more gun control and the media beating it to death constantly are not going to have the effect they think it will. Sure, a few dummies make videos of themselves committing felonies by destroying their guns incorrectly in a public fashion, and the media and anti-gunners will tell you most of America wants gun control. But in the gun store, the people are coming in in waves. We're living in the real world, where new shooters are born from cries of gun control and the NRA gets more donations than the media wants to think about. Prices rise. Demand increases. And there will be more AR15s out there than anyone wants to admit. And the NRA will be just fine.

​Sorry, anti-gunners. 

OK, I am going to start this off by saying I do not follow conspiracy theories, just so you know where I am coming from. I don't get on board with them, and I have a bad reaction to them. I will, however, listen to all sides of them before I call BS on them, but calling BS is almost always the outcome. I have, on rare occasion, declared a theory "unproven," which is different than calling BS. But on this story, so you know right off... I am calling BS. I have been watching this since it began. I have watched the reasoning and the debunking and the responses to the debunking. So, let's break this down. We're going to discuss not just the conspiracy theory, but the freedom of speech around them. 

A lot of the clips being used for the conspiracy side are being removed, which I'll get to later, but let's discuss some of the points made. 

Now, the main point being made is that David Hogg is a "crisis actor," which many media sources are actually claiming exists. They site this:

So crisis actors are a real thing. It's just that conspiracy theorists have taken them to new levels. 

​Now, "proof" one that David Hogg is a "crisis actor" is this:

The first thing someone pointed out was the shirt on the guy two pictures above David Hogg. And then there's this:

I'm more inclined to believe this young man's video, because he shows the yearbook. The tweet above just shows a close up of the page and nothing else... and the page is the same one. Now, a lot of folks are claiming it's a torn out page inside the yearbook. And that's great. But I decided to do a little research - which is, of course, not so easy since they're kids - and I found some of the people on that page! Sidney Ho is mentioned by CNN. OK, so the conspiracy theorists will come back because it's CNN. But I also found the facebook page for the young lady at the beginning of the row David Hogg is in, Mei-Ling Ho-Shin. She also attends the school. And no, I won't post her facebook page because you all need to leave her alone. 

She also never lived in California, which is where they claim this yearbook photo is from. She's from Georgia. 

The tweet with the fake picture and claim is probably not where it originated from. I can't seem to find the originating source. And I just went through her Twitter feed and can't find it, so she may have deleted it. However, every conspiracy theory about this shooting is being retweeted by her account. She hasn't been in high school for a while, though, so the tweet isn't from experience or from going to school with him.

​So I'm calling BS on the yearbook. It's the Stoneman yearbook. 

Then we have "his dad is/was an FBI agent!"

So what? Look, I know a lot of tensions are high because of the issues coming out about the FBI. But whether this kid's dad is or was an FBI agent means absolutely nothing. 

The California video:

Again, so what? He's apparently from California originally. I'm from NJ originally. I know there's photos and video of me from my time there - and times when I went back to visit - does that make me a crisis actor? He's allowed to go back to California from time to time. And this video is stupid. It's about a life guard not wanting the one kid to store his boogie board in a trash can. I can't imagine he'd have no experiences at all when he went back to California. 

And for the "butbutbut" squad, yes, the above video is actually the one where David Hogg appeared on the news.

Anyway, yes, it is actually possible for this young man to have been legitimately involved in both incidents. I'm not sure why this is even being questioned. The boogieboard incident wasn't a crisis, it was just an overly pushy life guard and a friend of his that didn't want to be banned from the beach, so he went to the media. 

Imagine that!

Moving on. He apparently "forgot his lines."

Are you kidding me? The kid was just involved in a shooting where 17 people died. And he's a kid. Let's see how put together you are after dealing with this, let alone how well you'd handle it as a high school student. And if he was as prolific a "crisis actor" as folks seem to think he was, I think he'd be better at remembering his lines, don't you? I'll tell you, I've been involved in incidents that weren't nearly this bad and I was an absolute hot mess.

​Actually, I was in NJ for 9/11 and was able to watch the event in real time from my front porch. I was 20 at the time. Let me tell you something... I was not only a hot mess, but I was completely irrational. My reaction to that event at that time was horrible. If I'd been interviewed by a reporter during that, I would have looked like a complete idiot. 

Let's face it. Every single time there is any kind of event in this country, the first thing we hear about is crisis actors. And we get stuff like this shown to us:

The above graphic is horse manure. Crisis actors do exist. They do not do what you think they do. And they aren't going to advertise publicly if they are going to stage a tragedy. Common sense. Seriously. This goes back to the quote from the crisis actor above. Yes, they use crisis actors to perform realistic drills. They do it all the time. It isn't an unknown thing. It is usually done for first responder training and large company training for mass events. And considering the state of the world, yeah, it's necessary. 

This time around, video after video is coming out, and Youtube and other video sites are removing them. One was in trending the other day on YouTube, and now you get this:

Do I like conspiracy theories? No. Do I believe most of them? No. Do I think they should be removed? No! This is still freedom of speech. And when you enter the public eye, as some of these kids have, you do, unfortunately, open yourself up to all kinds of criticism and theories. Any time you publicly proclaim an opinion, you are going to be openly criticized, and your age or reasoning doesn't matter. YouTube is watching their own butt, and they aren't known for being all about free speech. To date, it's just been demonetizing and not promoting videos. This was a removal. And the removal was based on feels. That's it. 

Look, I don't agree with this kid's opinion. I do, however, believe he has a right to express his opinion, and I will defend his right to do so. I don't like people trying to silence me, or the active attack on the first amendment. So I'm not going to do it to this kid, either. I do not believe any of these mass shootings were set ups. Some of them - like Vegas - were shady. Even still, for a man of his age, it isn't unheard of that he had no online presence. My mom doesn't, either. But I don't believe the people involved were actors. Do I think these kids were coached? Heck yes I do. I don't think they were given lines or anything like that, but their opinions are not based on more than one experience and their research is like what a lot of other people's research is - only what they want to see. I'm sure they are being shown "evidence" that can be or has been debunked six ways to Sunday. And I'm sure some of the ideas and thoughts they've put forward were suggested by parents or others. People get tougher feels when the kids are talking instead of the adults, and right now they are hoping that your feels will convince you to give up rights. 

Who I am now is not who I was when I was their age. I tended to believe what my parents and teachers did at the time, because they "knew better." I was lucky enough that my mom was a democrat and my dad was a republican. I ended up somewhere in between. Not all kids have that benefit. Not all kids get both sides of an issue. And I don't think a lot of these kids are getting both sides of many issues. 

Regardless. I know the people who believe the conspiracy theories are going to be enraged, and probably won't read far enough down to see this part. Most of them, anyway. I've already been called a "normie." Whatever. I'm too old to care about that garbage. Here's the bottom line: the fact that this conspiracy theory has gone so public isn't "waking people up." It's making our entire side look like a bunch of fools. You aren't opening people's eyes to anything. You are making our argument so weak it may become invalid. We're going to have to wait and see how far Trump goes on gun control. But you can bet your life savings the next democrat in office is going for the strictest gun control they can get past the Senate and Congress, and depending who is in those seats, that could be pretty bad news. And with this kind of trash going so heavily public, you are drawing that closer and closer. We're going to lose Constitutional and God given rights because you make us all look crazy. And right now, when they see one person do it, they assume the rest of us think that way, too. And nothing will change their minds. That's why we're all suddenly racist. Because a few people on the right are, the rest of us obviously are, too. So yes, you are taking us all down with you, and you are taking our freedoms along. 

We are fighting tooth and nail against a media that is beating us over the head with feels and a public that is falling for it, who in turn are now writing their reps begging to have their freedoms taken away for peaceful slavery. And if those reps think they won't get re-elected because the left screams louder than right ever does, then guess what? The conspiracy theories and the memes aren't going to cut it. We have a shot at losing a lot of seats in the government this year. Trump may end up not getting re-elected in 2020. And now is the time to stop lying to yourself and take action. Pepe the damn frog and other garbage isn't going to stop us from losing freedoms. Actual freedoms. 

So let's get off the kids. Let them protest and rant and rave. It's their right, just like it is yours. They are winning in public perception because the best we can come back with is a conspiracy theory about crisis actors. They are hitting people in the feels, and we're just making ourselves look nuts. As always, we have plenty of real facts and feels of our own that we can work with. Stop making us all look crazy, because you are guaranteeing us a loss of more freedoms, and that freedom is one of our fundamental ones. 

If you want to fight back - and you should - use real facts and real stories. Stop with the garbage. We're going to become Canada or Great Britain, and we can thank this kind of stuff for that. 

​Sorry, not sorry.

Do you ever read an article on something you have some knowledge on and just want to bash your head into the desk repeatedly because you know horrifically bad information is being released to the public and they are going to fall for it?

I just read that article from CBS. So let's talk about it. 

They have released an article on the five things harder to get in Florida than a gun. Yes, make sure you are sitting somewhere without a hard surface easily reachable by your forehead, because this one is special. 

Cold Medicine

2016 stats:
Firearms deaths: 2,704
Homicide: 1,294
Drug Poisoning Deaths: 4,728
​Per the CDC. 

The total of deaths from firearms and general homicide for 2016 is 3,998. 730 less than drug poisoning deaths. 

They are correct that pseudoephedrine is used to make methamphetamine. However, with the laws in place to stop the manufacture, as well as the possession of meth being illegal, 327 people still died because of meth.

You do not need to spend time filling out paperwork for cold medicine beyond signing a form, nor is there a background check performed by the FBI. You can buy cold medicine as a felon, illegal alien, domestic abuser, or after having been involuntarily committed. Cold medicine also does not cost hundreds of dollars a pill. 

Marriage License

In Florida - and the rest of the country - the legal purchase age for most rifles is 18, handguns 21. You cannot purchase a firearm under the age of 18. Even if mom and dad says it is OK. 

The act of being married isn't exactly safe, either. 

Fertilizer

They said it there. Fertilizer is a known component for bomb making, and would, I assume, become a nice go to should guns be outlawed. 

However, speaking from experience, if you walked into a gun store and wanted to buy 25 guns, you'd be escorted out and the FBI would be called. You can also buy a 50 lb bag of fertilizer for about $22. An AR15 is $500 and above. A 50 lb bag of fertilizer, in the wrong hands, will do a lot more damage a lot faster than an AR15 or 25. 

It's also just cow poop. That's not exactly hard to gather on your own. 

For those wanting to know if it happens, I spent seven years working in a gun store. One time a guy came in and wanted to buy ten AR15s. Yes, he was escorted out and the FBI got his information straight from his state ID. 

Anti-diarrhea medication 

According to their own linked article, the changes are voluntary. And it mentions nothing about the FDA coming to your home or any authority being called if you purchase "large quantities" of the medication. It takes anywhere from 50 to 300 of these pills at a time to get high. When you buy the medication, you are not asked to sign paperwork or show an ID. So how is this in any way harder to get than a gun?

Medical Marijuana

That would be a great argument except for the fact that marijuana is still federally illegal. I actually support legalizing pot, especially for medical purposes. But the fact of the matter is that whether Florida allows it or not, marijuana is not federally legal, and at any point the federal government can decide to step in and stop the use of it in states where it is legal. Jeff Sessions has already talked about doing that, as was discussed here. So yes, for medical reasons, you would need a prescription, and then you need to register it so they know who is using it should the federal government step in. That's what registries are for, after all. 

And of course, there is the glaringly obvious piece of all of this:

​None of these items are Constitutional rights. Your right to keep and bear arms is. I hate to be so blunt about it, but those are the facts. The second amendment does not mention hunting nor are there any words like "but" or "excluding" in the wording. A cursory look at firearms advances at the time it was written is also a dead giveaway that the Founding Fathers knew guns would improve and expected it. 

​The CBS article is nothing but propaganda, and bad propaganda at that. If it was fully pro-gun, that too would be propaganda. That isn't what our media is here for. It isn't their job. But they've gotten so far away from giving us the news that a lot of people are starting to take notice. It is no longer about presenting the news and the facts, it's all about pushing a political agenda. We deserve better than that. 

​All quotes taken from CBS News: click

It has been a big part of the ongoing story today that the Florida school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was a member of a white nationalist group, Republic of Florida. According to ABC News:

As of 2/15/18 at 11:40 PM, this is still an active article with no updates, corrections, or further clarifications. Since the reports are unconfirmed - and they admit to it very briefly in the article - this was a poor choice of headline. A good portion of people out there won't read the article, only the headline, so they won't see the claim is unconfirmed by law enforcement. 

Also as of 2/15/18 at 11:41 PM, from the Tallahassee Democrat:

You can click those images above for proof of time, screen shots taken at 11:42 PM EST. 

World News Tonight with David Muir at 6:30 PM EST, was also reporting that the shooter was a member of ROF, a white nationalist (I can't provide a clip because you have to sign in with your cable provider, and I don't have a TV). WNT is also ABC News. 

Now, both articles are claiming that this Jordan Jereb guy claimed the Florida shooter was part of their group. But according to the local source, law enforcement has found no evidence that the claim was true. 

*sigh*

​And then there's this gem:

Source

Confused yet? Hold on, this gets better! 

Below all of this there is a screenshot quote from this Jordan Jereb guy. The quote gets traced back to Gab, so I head over to Gab to make sure the screen shot is for real. Not only is it real, but this guy is losing his mind, and also claims it was a prank and he was had. He is also now not claiming to be a leader in this ROF. Here are the screen shots I took from his gab account. The first one is the one I was checking on, the rest are just the follow ups. Keep in mind, it is being reported that there are only about twelve members in this group, and if that is the case, then they should know if this kid was a member or not.

So now major news networks are still running the story that the shooter was a white nationalist and member of ROF, but it appears this may not be the case. Between a group claiming credit for the prank and local law enforcement not finding any evidence he was a member of the group, it may be time for the major news networks to clarify that this Jordan Jereb is walking it back and law enforcement is not agreeing with their sources. And they need to do it a little more obviously than their small admittance that this is all unconfirmed information. 

Right now, the folks on the left are giddy that they finally landed one that isn't a Bernie supporter. I, personally, don't usually care about the political affiliation of mass shooters. It really doesn't play a roll. It does, however, get forced down your throat if there is any inkling that their first cries of "right wing nut job" were correct, and if they are not correct the political leanings suddenly don't matter to them anymore, either. 

But this story is confusing at best. At worst, it is creating yet more division in a time of crisis, and since the reports are not confirmed, it seems premature. 

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Bottom line: we really don't 100% know if this guy was a member of ROF. The cops aren't done investigating it, but as of yet have found no evidence that he was. At the end of the day, it won't matter. Even if they find no evidence ever, and if this Jordan Jereb guy publicly states he was not a member, the anti-gunners and the far left are going to run with this. And, as usual, we will all immediately be called white nationalists for not being on the far left. 

​Great. More division. 

2/16/18 Update: It is beginning to be admitted this was a hoax. Some media outlets are beginning to add notes stating this news is possibly not true. The law enforcement agency is apparently tracking the membership of this group, which is why there is no evidence. More information:

As usual, something stupid happens and the government thinks they need to fix it. 

The Tide Pod challenge, in case you somehow haven't heard about it, is basically teens filming themselves putting Tide Pods into their mouths and posting the videos on YouTube because they want to be internet famous. 

Like every other challenge on Earth, this too shall pass, if we let it. YouTube has started deleting videos of people doing this, they demonetize videos that even discuss it, Tide has put out PSAs about eating the pods. And now the government is stepping in when they don't need to, as usual. 

Tide Pods - and other detergent and soap pods - have been under fire since they were released. Because the pods are brightly colored, it began with babies and small children eating them thinking they were candy. In response, Tide has made special packaging to make it harder for kids to get into the packages. And after hearing about that for so long, it suddenly became a challenge for teens and college kids. 

Here's the thing. With the small children, that is 100% on the parents. We love to place blame on everyone but ourselves when tragedy strikes, but the bottom line is that if your small child or baby eats a detergent pod, you did that. It is your responsibility to keep those things out of reach of your children. If, for some reason, you can't seem to be able to do that... don't buy the detergent pods! Novel idea, I know. Powdered and liquid detergent has been around for a long time and is still easily accessible. Heck, I've never used a detergent pod, I don't see the need for them. But if you can't keep your kids from getting at them, remove them from your home. 

With teens and college kids, that isn't as easy. It still isn't the responsibility of the government to tell the manufacturers how to make them, what color they should be, or how to package them. Colors and packaging aren't going to deter a teenager. They aren't eating them because the colors are pretty. If that were the case, there would be a lot more instances of Tide Pod eating, and it wouldn't be videoed. They'd just be eating them on their own, without their friends around to cheer them on. 

No, the motivation for teens is the same as it has always been - attention and impressing their peers. Even if the pods were just solid white or solid blue or whatever, they'd still do it to get the slaps on the back from the buddies who dared them, they'd get that girl/boy they've been eyeing to notice them, and they'd get 100,000 views online because we, as a people, encourage this crap for our own entertainment. 

Stop and look at YouTube. What do you see getting the attention there? Is it the videos of deep philosophical discussion, or is it the parents prank torturing their kids? Pranks are huge on YouTube, the more outrageous the better, and while people claim they hate to see people get hurt in them, those videos still get astronomical amounts of views. But you also have car crashes. Fights. Customers abusing retail employees and/or tearing stores up. "Karma" videos. Videos about making fun of groups that have varying popularity (ie: feminist fails, etc.). Challenges of varying degrees of dangerousness (one day it's the Harlem Shake, the next day they're setting themselves on fire). There are entire channels full of nothing but cops pulling over cars for traffic stops. 

The bottom line is that these dangerous challenges gain steam because people watch them, and they watch them in large quantity. People, for some reason, like to see people getting hurt, scared, or screwed. Whatever the latest challenge is, you can expect a million videos of people doing it, because when people find it entertaining, they'll watch as many of them as they can to see how each person did the challenge and their reactions to them. Only when the novelty wears off and the views stop dropping does the challenge stop. 

With this challenge, your video might not just get attention on YouTube, but your clip might be chosen for the nightly news. Score! And they don't care that the world is laughing at them - they care that they were noticed and got on TV or got a million views on YouTube. 

So is forcing the makers of these detergent pods to change them going to stop all of this? No. It won't do a damn thing. It requires the parents to protect small children and stop being stupid. And it takes killing the novelty and the attention whoring to stop the challenges. As I said in the video above, these challenges are getting more and more extreme, and now might be the time to start talking to your kids about them. This requires parenting. It won't end all the issues from dangerous challenges, but ending all those issues isn't going to be legislated away, either. Start parenting your child. Start paying attention to them and engaging them. We don't need more legislation. We need more parents. 

The jokes and the memes have been oh so plentiful, so we're going to skip all of that here. Let's take a constructive look at these portraits, shall we? We're going to ignore politics here, too. Really, I've been running this page in one form or another for about eight years, so most of the Obama presidency was already covered. He's gone now. So let's see the portraits. 

So, this is Obama's official portrait for the gallery. 

​I'm going to be honest... I don't hate it. I don't adore it, but I don't hate it, either. And what I think most people don't like about it is this:

Most presidents' portraits have either a muted background or some professional setting. Heck, I saw portraits of the deans of a college over the weekend and they were done the same way. Normally, a professional portrait of this nature has that sort of background, where it is an afterthought that forces the eye to the subject - the person. 

So in this sense, Mr. Obama's portrait is unusual. Your eye goes immediately to that wild background of leaves and flowers. Unorthodox, yes. It is very loud. But that is the message. Don't kid yourself, there is a political message in the portrait. Several, most likely. A lot of liberals consider Obama a champion of environmental issues, so that's covered. But I believe the artist also wants one to believe that Obama stands out while blending in. Let's face it, that portrait is going to stand out. WAY out. But when you look at it, he's also trying to cover portions of Obama, as a way of saying he's part of it all and his work is as big as he is. 

Yeah, I might be over analyzing it. You can pull your own message out of the painting, but don't kid yourself into thinking there isn't a message or 50 in the painting. 

Now, I mentioned that I didn't hate it. I'm not a fan of the message I pulled out of it, but overall, as a piece of artwork, it's not bad. It resembles him a great deal, and the artist didn't hide the fact that Obama has aged a lot in the last 8 years. And while it is very eye catching and very loud, I think it will do just fine. It does capture who Obama is, let's face it. He likes being the center of attention, he wants to be noticed first, and all that is right there for generations to come. He doesn't want you to forget he existed, and with that painting, you can't. It can probably be seen from the moon!

Ooooh, Michelle. 

This portrait I hate. I'm just going to be honest. That doesn't even slightly look like her. 

Now, the bottom of the portrait was cut out, but it reveals a long, flowing dress, with just hints of yellow and pink in the design. And what appears to be a heart. It is a lot different from what other first ladies have had done, just like Barack's. But this... this is bad. 

The artist tried. Really, I think she did. But she came up very short. Michelle appears to like it, but if I was in charge of giving the go ahead, I would have turned this one away. There's apparently supposed to be a political statement in this, as well, but I couldn't wager a guess as to what that is. I don't think it encapsulates her personality. It doesn't do a thing for Michelle. And, like I said, if I was in charge of approvals, this wouldn't be going into the gallery. She can take that home with her, but I'd want a portrait of her. I don't know who that is, but it clearly isn't Michelle Obama. I wonder if the artist has ever seen her before they unveiled this thing. 

I enjoy looking at art and thinking up what it is trying to say, whether I am right or not about the message. It's just something I've always enjoyed. And I walk away from paintings and sculpture that don't say anything to me. This portrait doesn't say anything. Barack's at least had something to say. This is just... it's silent. There's no message, there's no meaning. If you love everything about Michelle, you can probably pull something from it. But I prefer Barack's because, even though I'm not a fan, I was still able to pull a message out of it. The guy who did Barack's is a fan of his. The woman who did Michelle's... I'm not so sure. It looks like it was done because she was asked, but she didn't put anything into it, no emotion or feeling, and that lack of emotion comes right off the canvas at you. 

The painting looks like the photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a newspaper photograph of a woman that was cut out and glued to a blue board. It doesn't speak to you unless you really, really force it to. And I can't get into that. Completely aside from the fact that that isn't Michelle. Period. 

​So that's it. That's what I think of these portraits. What did you think?

The big news today has been the snow pounding the south east, and I am right here in the middle of it. I was released from work about the time I would normally go to lunch, and it took me a bit over three hours to get home. I won’t give you the entire play-by-play of the experiences I had coming home, but I do want to say something to people in general.

When I was growing up, we lived in NJ. As many of you know, or should, it snows a lot more there than it does down here. So I was raised to stop and help people get their cars out of tight spots like a parking spot the plow had just passed or when they got stuck skidding on hills. This lesson was a general lesson, not just a snow lesson. You stop and help people when they need it. Be it karma or just doing what is right, you stop and help people who are in trouble.

Somewhere along the line, we lost that.

This is not a “Northerners vs. Southerners in the Snow” story, so keep reading.

I was in an area with a hill tonight, and it was so slick and icy cars were either getting stuck or sliding back down. Other drivers attempting to get around the mess just made the mess worse. All it would take to clear the issues and get the line moving – thus assisting in getting cars up the hill – was for the smaller cars that had gotten stuck to be pushed out of the way. This would clear the path, stop the growing wall of cars getting stuck while trying to get around, and keep an actual pace so that the tires kept moving and didn’t get stuck again. It would assist in keeping traffic moving, basically.

But no one helped. I had a small car in front of me, a BMW. I considered giving him a shove with my Rav4, but decided against it, as it would probably cause more harm than good. It was time for some good, old fashioned snow fixes. I locked down my car on the side of the hill and got out. I knocked on the side of the BMW so he wouldn’t try to reverse, then I began to push on his car. He got the point and began pressing the gas. With some effort, he broke free and began moving forward, but was unable to continue without rear assistance. At this point, someone else came to assist. The two of us and the driver got the BMW to the top of the hill, where he was able to go on his way.

Me and this other girl looked at each other and turned back… to see nothing but cars. No one else got out to help… but there were several hands waving to us to come help them. So we did. Eventually – thank God – a man came by with a pick up on duelies with a winch and he began towing cars up the hill – including mine, which had become stuck while I was assisting others.

What a lot of you do not know is about two years ago I dislocated my right knee. I did get it fixed eventually, but my knee will never be the same again. I also broke my left knee in college, and since that knee has been taking up for the right one, it, too, is not in great condition. This is not the best situation when pushing cars and vans up an icy hill during a snow storm. And I knew when it was over my knees would swell and I would be in a lot of pain. But I was willing to make a sacrifice to help my fellow human beings who were in trouble.
​
And we, as humans, have that obligation. What should you take from all of the above?

1. Don’t just stick your hand out to the few willing to work. Get out and work yourself. The group as a whole benefits from more people working.
2. Don’t ever turn a blind eye to a stranger in trouble. I do believe it comes back to you, and it did to me. I was pushed out of ice twice tonight.
3. Don’t expect a thank you for a good deed. That’s not what you are doing it for. The person driving the BMW? I never saw their face. I didn’t need to. My thank you was watching “him” get over the hill and get down the road on “his” own.
4. Sometimes, nothing else matters. We weren’t Northerners and Southerners, black and white out there tonight. We were a few people helping a few people in trouble. As it should be.
5. Sometimes making a sacrifice is worth it. It may be crippled knees or being cold for a few minutes. But whatever it is, sometimes that sacrifice is good for you. Tonight, without me accepting the inevitable pain, and without the help of the man with the winch and the woman helping me walk cars, it would have taken a lot longer to get that road moving again, and it was only getting worse.
6. And sometimes you do it because we’re people, and people need to help each other out. We didn’t wait for the government to send someone like the cops, we did it ourselves. We did it because it was the right thing to do. Do unto others…

​So, the latest Hollywood vs. anyone not on the extreme left outrage is care of Law and Order: SVU. Apparently, there is a female right wing pundit - who people claim is very Ann Coulter like - who gets violently raped at a rally or something. Everyone is upset by this depiction, but I saw it in a different light.
​

1. They have to help her and solve the case.
2. It sort of highlights the violence of the left. While the female pundit is the one hurt, she was most likely hurt by people who hated her, or at least this is how this episode is being depicted (it hasn't aired yet, I don't believe. Maybe it has. I don't know. I'll never see it). The left loves to silence people by any means necessary, and this sadly is not an unlikely scenario. This episode forces you to see and recognize that.

​I haven't watched SVU in years, mostly because I decided to do away with a household TV. But the show has been on forever, and depicts rape. Rape of all kinds of people. I'm not as outraged by this scenario as a lot of other folks seem to be. They take topics that are big at the moment, and right now, the silencing of right wing political pundits is still big in the news, has been for a while. 

Yeah, I hate to say it, but those doing the silencing have proven that the use of violence, to them, is justified in silencing opinions they don't agree with. So this scenario, while gruesome, is not unlikely, and not only the women are threatened by it. We've already seen one female pro-gun pundit have to pick up her entire family and move quickly because a guy was sending her death threats that evolved into pictures of her kids at their school. The students practically burning down their own college to prevent Milo from speaking is old news, but news that will be burned into our minds for eternity. Even myself. I am, by no means, a force in the political world, I'm just some chick who likes to talk about current events and politics, and once in a while you folks come over to read it. But if you guys saw some of the messages I receive on an almost daily basis, you'd be shocked. A lot of them are graphic. 

So while a lot of people take this episode as an affront to right wing pundits, I see something else, and hope others see it, too. This is a dangerous game, and people will go to any lengths to silence you. It has happened before, and it is happening every single day. This episode forces you to not ignore that. I'm not saying this isn't inflammatory or that it isn't an attack on the right wing. I don't know if it is or not. But we can take more away from it than that. 

So it was released today that Formula 1 has decided to do away with the use of Grid Girls at their events. Grid Girls, for those who don't know, are basically models who perform promotional duties. As you can imagine, these young ladies are above average in looks and are usually dressed to highlight their assets. As has been stated, however, they are not exactly "scantily clad" as the women are at some events. 

There has been mixed reactions, but the Grid Girls don't seem too happy about this change.

The Women's Sport Trust has a different take:

The fact of the matter is, these types of employment for women have been under attack for as long as they have been available. From women protesting places like Hooters, to fights about cheerleaders at various sporting events, feminists and others view this sort of thing as being politically incorrect and objectifying women.

​I have a different stance on it. 

Businesses may be looking at it differently, but why is that? Women's Sport Trust claims it isn't a matter of feminists vs. the models, but isn't it? What was it, exactly, that convinced businesses that this was not the right thing for women to be doing? 

The entire point of women's rights and equality is supposed to be based on women pursuing what they want to as a career. It's a big reason why I never disparaged women in careers like Hooters, or exotic dancers, or even women in the porn industry. The Gird Girls are not being forced to do this work. They are there because they want to be, and they seem to genuinely enjoy what they are doing. So why is that so wrong? Why can't we leave them alone? If you've got and can make money off of it, why is that so bad?

According to feminists, anything outside of an office is not suitable for women. That isn't equality. Equality is telling a woman that any job she can do, she should, if she wants it. Jobs like this are not available for every women. I could never be a Grid Girl! But other women can, and I don't begrudge them that. You get you some of that! 

No, it isn't high paying CEO position or a STEM job. Why does it have to be? It seems to me that women are a little too concerned with how other women make their money. 

I remember back in the early 2000s I was working in a heavily male dominated field. It never really dawned on me that it was "weird" for me to be doing the job. They hired me, I must have been a good fit. The position was as a driver for an armored car (money trucks). I had a partner that slowly trained me to do the heavy messenger work without the company knowing he was doing it, and when I was ready, I told the company I was fully trained. Once proven, I was tossed into the back of the truck. The job required long hours (horrendously long hours) and almost no days off. It also required extremely heavy lifting. From toting thousands of dollars in coins into multiple banks to moving pallets full of coins from the vault to the truck, it wasn't a job every women - or every man - could do. But I did it for three years. And I had an impressive bench press at the end of it!

The one thing that stood out to me was the reaction of other women when they realized a woman was doing this job. The men didn't bat an eye. The women had one of three reactions. I went into a small bank inside a large store to drop off and pick up, and someone who worked for the store saw me. She got very excited and exclaimed, "Our armored guard is a woman?! You go, girl!!!" That was a one time reaction. 

Some women reacted as the men did and didn't react at all. I preferred that reaction. My job was what it was, and if I wasn't capable of doing the job, I wouldn't have been there. 

But a lot of the time, women wouldn't work with me. I was completely dumbfounded by this reaction. The women were downright mean to me. More often than not, they would refuse to give me what they were sending out because apparently this was "men's work" and I wasn't capable of doing it, so they would "wait until they sent a man around." I had one bank hold deposits for two months hoping a man would be sent to pick it up. I finally went in one day and the head teller was out sick. Her backup was a male who had no issue giving me the items, even though it was two months worth of stuff. I hauled it out, he signed off on it, and all was right with the world.

The problem was, those women called my boss to complain that they shouldn't be sending a "weak" woman around to do this work and they wanted a male messenger (several of the women just wanted to flirt with the men, I later found out). Thank God my boss knew what I could do and what was really going on. Otherwise, it could have cost me my job. I wasn't making a ton of money at that job, but I was fresh out of college and in a new state. I needed that job terribly and couldn't afford to lose it. It was my first full time out of college. But with all these women refusing to allow me to do my job and calling to complain because of what they assumed I could and could not do without any evidence of either, I could have been put out on my butt and replaced with a man. 

What right did they have to decide what I should be doing for a living? Obviously I was capable of doing the job. Granted, I didn't enjoy what I was doing, but that wasn't necessary. I needed the job. And I did it as well as everyone else doing it. 

This is a big reason I support women in jobs like the above. Like my job in armored cars, not everyone can. I wouldn't expect these Grid Girls to all be able to do armored cars (although I'm sure many could). But I couldn't be a Grid Girl, either. Just like men, women can and can't do various jobs for whatever reason. They may be better suited for something that someone else can't do at all. I'm not a looker, but I'm strong. And I was doing what I wanted to at the time. 

These women are fully in control. If they, at any point, don't want to do the job, it is their decision to stop doing it. Feminists and women's groups shouldn't be convincing their bosses or those who pay for the service that this is wrong to do to women. It isn't wrong. It's a job, like any other. It's a need that can only be filled by certain women. If you think it is wrong and just objectifies women... don't do the job! But don't tell other women they can't, either. Trust me, they know all the pros and cons of the job they are doing. And they are smart enough to make the best decision for them. The point is, you don't know what is best for them. You only know what is best for you. 

​Equality and women's rights means letting women do what they feel is best for them. Let them choose what they want to do. They know what they are capable of and what benefits and detriments any job has. If you want to stand on the side of women, start believing in them and their choices. Stop treating women like they are too stupid to do what is best for themselves. They aren't.