Here I sit at my computer reading an article and the corresponding open letter penned by the gentleman in question, hand over my mouth and blood boiling. 

Major Skelton was seriously wounded in combat and is living with the aftermath of those injuries. 

Because of issues with his mouth, he was having issues eating and drinking, something that has apparently happened before. He called the VA, who told him to go to his local emergency room and have them put in a feeding tube. With a feeding tube comes liquids that must be put in it to actually feed him, and apparently he had used a brand called Jevity for this purpose before. 

This time, however, the VA persuaded him to switch to a different brand, Diabetisource. 

Six days later, he receives a letter from the VA telling him they don't cover Diabetisource, and he would have to find and pay for the feeding tube liquid himself. 

Imagine that. 

Now, a lot of you are aware of the issues with my father's illness as well. My father passed in April 2016 from Glioblastoma (aggressive brain cancer; same illness as John McCain). We had our own fun with the VA. At first, they told my father that they were not set up to do chemotherapy and radiation at our local VA. None of his medications were covered. And when the time came, he was not welcome in their nursing home, either. This is after it was "assumed" he had contracted the illness as a effect of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, something many other veterans have won claims for and many more - and their widows - are still fighting for. 

In my father's case, a well worded letter to a state senator (Richard Burr), opened the flood gates, and suddenly they were set up to do chemotherapy and radiation! And his medications were suddenly covered, too! Imagine that! He was still not welcome in their nursing home, but we figured the largest battles were won and let it go. 

I have friends - more than there should be - who are fighting with the VA over various combat related injuries and the ongoing treatment, and illnesses contracted overseas, from hepatitis to hearing loss. Each of these people describes dealing with the VA over these cases as being like pulling teeth (OK, let's be fair, they use much more colorful wording than that, but we're keeping it clean here). None of this should be, especially for injuries during combat. 

And especially when the soldier is following the suggestions of the VA, like Major Skelton above had done. 

However. 

Just this month, a soldier - active duty - received gender reassignment surgery in a private hospital covered by the military. This surgery isn't just a snip job. It requires hormones, therapy, and a list of other things, which can also include cosmetic surgery to make the person appear to be the gender they have chosen. 

So this person's sex change was "medically necessary" and deemed OK to cover, but Major Skelton's feeding tube liquid isn't covered?! The feeding tube liquid the VA expressly suggested he use?! 

Now, to be clear, I have not found details of anything else covered for this sex change other than the surgery itself. I assume the surgery was the changing of the genitalia and not the cosmetic surgery. It does not say whether hormones and therapy were covered as well (from other items I have previously read, however, it appears these things are covered). It also does not state whether or not this person was already transitioning before they entered the military. So as far as I see it, we're not being given enough information here, including how long this person will be non-deployable. As usual, the news sources covering this story are more concerned with this being a big middle finger to Trump's transgender ban than they are to giving real details about how our tax dollars are being spent. 

Major Skelton's injuries were from combat. I don't have an issue with tax dollars being spent for his care. But unless this person lost their gender identity in combat, I think the priorities of our military are a little screwed up. We have veterans sleeping on the streets, freezing to death. Just the other day, we were all getting teary eyed over the veteran who helped the stranded woman and is being helped by a GoFundMe campaign to get him off the street. Why does he need a GoFundMe? Why aren't we helping to get this guy off the street? We can't help homeless vets, but we can cut off their willies?! 

Look. I'm a very live and let live kind of gal. I really could not care less if people want to change their genders. I really couldn't. It's your body, do whatever the hell you want to to it. It doesn't affect me at all. But this does. This is tax dollars. The government is 100% tax payer funded. So that affects me directly. And I believe those tax dollars should go to giving the best care to combat wounded, those who got sick from military practices or from exposure to illness in foreign lands (with the exception of STDs),  and homeless vets. Once all these folks are being cared for with the best possible care - which they currently aren't - then we can discuss whether or not we're going to cut off people's willies with tax payer money and make them non-deployable for extended periods while still getting paid as a soldier. In the meantime, feed Major Skelton. Like, immediately. 

This has been a politically heated few years, let's face it. And due to the current standing of politics in this country, we are divided as all hell. Apparently, we can no longer find a way to be friends with people who disagree with us, every holiday must have politics injected into it regardless of what the majority around you celebrating want, and the elite left is busy telling us all about how awful anyone who isn't them is. 

​You've got articles like this one from GQ or this one from the leaders of morality at Planned Parenthood. Apparently, it isn't your elitist, self absorbed, regressive self that's the problem! No! It's literally everyone else! 

With the plethora of articles going around for how you can be an even more obnoxious elitist than usual, I would like to sit down for a moment and address everyone else. Political leaning aside, if you aren't a far left commie, this is for you. 

Thanksgiving is a time to get together with family you may have not seen all year long. Other than the rush to cook everything, it should be a relatively stress free holiday if you are doing it right. It's a time to be thankful for what you have and to love on each other as we enter into one of the best times of the year. 

Let's achieve that this year, shall we? When your crazy blue haired elite regressive leftist family member sits down at the table and starts to complain about politics, quietly stand up, walk over to them, gently take them by the arm, and haul their behind outside. Put them on the front walk with whatever they came in with, close the door, and lock it. Then go back to the rest of the family. They can stand outside and make whatever scene they want to make. Ignore them. 

No, I'm really not kidding. At this point, we deserve some peace and quiet. Everyone - including liberals - are sick and tired of hearing their horse manure. You are allowed to have a holiday without it, and if someone is hell bent on depriving you and your family of that peace and quiet, remove them. Put them on the front walk before they even know what hits them, and do not let them back in. At all. Your family will be grateful, and you all will be able to enjoy a nice politics free Thanksgiving.

Yes, by the way... you can feel free to remove the right winger, too. If someone sits down and starts going off about walls and tax reform or anything else, escort them outside. No politics. At all. I know some folks enjoy talking politics. I'm one of them. But we all have that family member who is "my way or the highway" about it and won't have it that others disagree. And when someone tries to push the conversation in another direction, that person swings it right back to politics, only louder. Those conversations escalate from discussion to fights around the table. Remove it before it gets under way. Left or right. If you can't have a discussion and listen to others, you're on the front walk. Period. If you can't take a hint from the family that they don't want to discuss politics or that it is time to move on from politics, you're on the front walk. Period. 

​Let's have peace on Earth for one friggin' day, huh? 

Look, I'm going to be upfront with you all. And some of you already know this about me. My tin foil hat is not well worn. I am not into conspiracy theory at all. But I do have a few things that I will break out my tin foil hat for, and when I do, especially when I feel the need to speak out about the stuff publicly, you can bet that I feel there is real validity there or it is a major possibility. 

Today's tin foil hat chat is going to be about the recent up-tick in online censoring of "wrong think." If you are here, you are most likely guilty of wrong think, at least in some aspects. So this pertains to you, regardless of political party or beliefs. 

You can check out this video here, which inspired me to say something myself, for his aspect on things. 

The big news online right now is Twitter deverifying users they don't like. And that is, basically, what they are doing. If you are discussing things they don't like, you lose your verification. There has also been another issue with Google apparently locking you out of documents in Google Docs because they "violate the terms of service." 

YouTube has been coming under fire for demonetizing - and preventing the promotion of - videos that discuss "controversial subjects." You can still pull nasty pranks on strangers and beat your children for views and keep your monetization, but don't you dare talk about anything that actually makes people think. Don't dare hurt anyone's feelings. And don't dare speak of Google in a negative light. Like I did. 

They won't even review them. YouTube has a limit of 1000 views before they will apparently review videos, but I have submitted videos for review with less than 30 views that got reviewed. So that's hogwash. 

Now, the video I linked above will go into a lot of details about the latest in online censorship, but I want to take it a step further.

As we all know, Google has known, public leanings, and they aren't shy about censorship. If they don't like your news article, it gets moved so far back it doesn't ever get found, or it never shows up in search results at all. You may get locked out of accounts, or have videos demonetized and unpromoted so they can't be found. 

Twitter actually made a statement about your verification being removable due to bad behavior - even off of Twitter. Meaning, if you say something considered to be "wrong think" somewhere else, they can still unverify you. 

Facebook, Google, etc. are all tracking what you do online. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Google can even use your phone to keep an online accounting of where you have physically been. All in the name of "advertising." And you can "opt out" to some degree from all of this (I put that in quotes, because you actually can't). 

So, how bad could this get? Well, let's see. Even the mainstream media has covered stories about your smart TV listening all the time, your smart home devices listening all the time, your phone listening all the time, the ease of access to your cameras whether they are on your phone, laptop, or even home security. 

Google Fiber is a thing. I actually use it myself. And I'll be honest, it's amazing. I can upload a 30 minute video to YouTube in literally seconds. It's mind blowingly fast. But Google now supplies my internet. At what point can I expect Google to decide they don't like my website here and are going to block my access to the Internet completely for 30 days, then 60 days, then permanently? And with as great as it is, the other options in the area are really struggling. AT&T provides fiber around here, too, but the service and the performance are so bad that most people I know who use it quickly switch. Google teases everyone by slowly releasing their service in chosen areas and then making you wait for them to actually connect you and all this other really elite garbage. 

I could go back to Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable), but then I also go back to uploading a five minute video in two hours. If I can access the site at all. And in reality, they are already struggling, so how much longer is that going to last? Especially when the prices are astronomically high.

I'm looking around at my own home right now. If Google decided to block me for 30 days... I would have no phone. I would have no heat (in the downstairs of my house. The upstairs thermostat isn't connected to the Internet). No TV. And if I wanted these things back, I'd have to conform. I would have to post nothing online that they disliked. And, if we're counting the smart devices, I'd have to watch what I'm saying inside my house. My nightly conversations with my mother about the news would have to be stopped. Even this website. The only real way to support the costs of this website are with Google Ads. It isn't much, but it's the only source of real potential income I have right now. And they can - and probably will - shut it down eventually.

Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal, and more and more the left side of the isle is becoming less open to opposing views, wrong think, or anything else they don't like. They demand conformity. They demand access to only what they believe. They demand no challenge to their ideas or thoughts. And Google has the power to stop anyone they please easily. 

Our lives are becoming more dependent on online activity as each day goes by. Everything we do is connected to the Internet. Even your car can be shut down remotely. And the more connected we become, the more liberal tech companies demand our conformity or punish us, and the more those punishments actually effect our ability to function. We have a generation of kids coming up and those in college and entering the workforce now who are living in an echo chamber and want to stay there. And they don't have a problem with violently reacting to those who try to pull them from that echo chamber. And companies like Google - who are becoming more and more of a world ruler instead of a utility - are happy to comply. 

We are being removed from society. We are being cast aside as though we don't matter and are just a simple obstacle. We are being punished for not blindly following and nodding along like bobble heads. We are being silenced. Aggressively. And those who claim to love free speech are cheering that on. 

​OK, tin foil hats off. I'm done. 

Pardon me for this entry here, this might be a stream of consciousness. But I'm wondering on some things. 

I was just watching a video about protesters at a Ben Shapiro speech. As always, there was lots of spewing of talking points and walking away from the camera when asked to back it up because they couldn't, crazy conspiracy theories, overt hate, and the always present and always creepy chants. 

My first curiosity is why do you make a claim and then walk away? A lot of things people were accusing Ben Shapiro of being were serious allegations. What is your proof? Why do you walk away? They were obviously getting angry because the interviewer wasn't just blindly nodding along like a mindless bobble-head doll. Is that what is expected by these people? Anything you say is to be believed immediately and the demand to back it up is infuriating to you? How dare they require proof? If you believe your stance and opinion are correct, why are you unwilling to defend it beyond a blanket statement? If it's right, as you say it is, you should be able to easily defend it, right?

What made me sit down to write this, however, was a chant I hear rather often, and you all do, too. "Donald Trump is worse than Hitler." 

Every time I hear this statement I am left speechless. The comparison of Trump to Hitler is a big deal right now, and you are all well aware of that. But I wonder how anyone can make a statement like Trump is worse than Hitler and not see what they are actually doing.

This is a group of people who claims to be fighting hate and bigotry. And they choose to do so by downgrading one of history's biggest atrocities. 

Trump is worse than Hitler? Where are the millions of people that Trump has murdered? Where are the mass graves that Trump had these people buried in? Where are the work camps where he starved these people or gassed them to death or had doctors perform unthinkable "experiments" on? Where are the countries we have conquered and the citizens we left dead in our paths? 

Is this stemming from blind hate, woeful ignorance, or are our schools not teaching about the holocaust anymore? Because I began learning about the holocaust in grade school. In high school, "Night" was required reading and I still hold to this day that that book changed me and began forming the person before you today. That was, to me, one of the most powerful books to ever be put into print. That book, to me, is so powerful that I can feel it in my hand every time I so much as hold it. 

You may not like Trump. You may not like any political ideology right of George Soros. And you may think the way to get laws changed is to cry and scream into the sky about them. But in no way is Trump - or any US politician - anywhere near Hitler. And to claim Trump is worse than Hitler... I don't know if we should be angry at those making that claim, or if we should be angry at our educational system for so desperately failing these little babies.

Enforcing laws on our books and trying to prevent the spread of extremist groups like ISIS is not akin to the horrific murder of 6 million+ people. Nothing Trump has said, done, or suggested is anywhere near what Hitler did. I understand that everything that is said or done by someone you dislike for whatever reason must be inflated with over dramatization, but this is ignorant to dangerous levels. This is the ignoring of history. This is spitting in the face of those 6 million+ people who died and those who managed to somehow survive. Because you didn't get what you want?! 

And that's all this is... a temper tantrum because you didn't get what you wanted. You don't actually care about marginalized groups. You don't care about minorities. You don't care about women. You care that you didn't get what you want and a large portion of the country told you no, something you may have never heard in your life before. And now, because you chose to sleep through history class, you are proving that to be the case by screaming your stupidity and hate through a megaphone and proving to the entire world that your hate knows no bounds at all. If you actually cared one single lick about anyone other than yourself, you'd learn about people, you'd learn history, and you'd think before you made such horrendous statements. 

Trump is not worse than Hitler. Trump would have to work pretty damn hard to get anywhere near the level of Hitler. A wall on our border is not the gassing of millions of people. Wanting better background checks on people coming into our country instead of just letting everyone in is not the same as doctors trying to change eye colors with injections or performing unthinkable and deadly experiments on kids because they are twins. Having a few crazy racists that happen to claim support of you is not the slow brainwashing of an entire nation into the support of exterminating people because they aren't blond haired and blue eyed. 

Read a damn book. For God's sake, you are in college. You have access to a library on campus and there is an endless supply of knowledge literally in your pocket right now thanks to Apple and Android. Take 30 minutes a day away from Facebook and Twitter and read something historic. Spend less time focused on underwater basket weaving as a major and learn something about the world you live in and where we came from. Have just a touch of respect for your ancestors and those who shaped the history of this world. Not just this country... this entire world. Take one less selfie and think about people other than yourself. Life isn't about how many people liked your trash on Instagram. Respect those around you and those who came before you.

​Learn something of actual value. 

More and more stupid started washing into my feeds and email inbox the last few days. It really was out of control. So I want to discuss three different stupid gun control things today. Let's start with

According to this, the Connecticut Supreme Court is taking on this case. Lawyers are arguing that Adam Lanza "heard the message loud and clear when gun-maker Remington Arms marketed an AR-15-style rifle as an overpowering weapon favored by elite military forces." 

What Adam Lanza heard was "this gun is in my mom's safe, I'm gonna take that." He did not purchase that rifle... he stole it. If anyone deserves the stink eye here, it is his mother - who he killed before shooting up the school - because she brought guns into the house knowing her son was severely mentally ill. 

All of that aside, what Remington Arms produced was a completely legal and Constitutionally sound sporting firearm that does not perform in the manner of military firearms and is not used by any military force in the world. It was his mother's choice to bring that firearm into her home, a choice a lot of folks would not have made having a child who is mentally ill. 

Is Remington responsible for the mass shooting at Newtown? As responsible as Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Mazda, etc. are for drunk drivers killing other people on the road.  When a person gets behind the wheel of a car after drinking, they have made the decision to do so. You can argue with me on this all you want... no one forced this person to drink to excess or get behind the wheel. Adam Lanza's mother made the decision to purchase the firearms. Adam Lanza made the decision to kill her and a lot of other people that day. The gun and the car are tools used to bring about the end result. They are not the perpetrator of the crime. 

"But! But! Guns are designed to kill!" Guns are designed to be fired accurately. What is done with them is up to the user. Cars are designed to drive you from point A to point B. Whatever else is done with them is up to the user. Both issues are a people problem. Millions of people got into their cars today and drove to various places, and made it there without killing other drivers or pedestrians. They got there without being drunk or on drugs. And they made that choice themselves. In the same light, millions of gun owners did not kill anyone today. Our guns sat safely in their safes. Or were used at the firing range. Or were used in defense of life. Those millions of gun owners could have killed people today. But they made the choice not to.  

So if we can hold the gun manufacturers liable for mass shootings, gang crime, robberies, murders, suicides, etc., then we should likewise hold car makers liable for users who are drunk, on drugs, sleepy, texting, etc. 

There's a lot going on in what she wants done, but most folks are focused on the fact that she wants a muzzleloader listed as NFA. Meaning you'd need extreme background checks, most sheriffs won't sign off on it, and you'd have to pay - and repay repeatedly - a tax stamp. 

So what's the deal with this muzzleloader? Well, apparently, there is a muzzleloader with a built in suppressor - SilencerCo Maxim 50 moderated muzzleloader. 

These barrels do exist for various firearms. It's normally a heavy barrel that is, in itself, both the barrel and the suppressor. The firearm does not appear to have a suppressor on it, it just resembles a heavy barrel that is normally used for target shooting. They are normally regulated under NFA rules. This version does have an obvious can on it, though. It looks similar to that shotgun in No Country for Old Men. But if I understand correctly, it is still integrated into the barrel. 

In the case of a muzzleloader... they aren't really regulated. The ATF doesn't recognize most muzzleloaders as firearms. Muzzleloaders also don't show up at crime scenes 99.9% of the time... because they are muzzleloaders. Your average thug can't load one. 

Look, I'm a trained and practiced shooter. I've been shooting most of my adult life. I have shot a muzzleloader one time in my life... a month ago. No, I'm serious. One of my range buddies brought his muzzleloader to the range in prep for hunting season. Because we all bring our guns out and pass them between the three of us, he was willing to pass his muzzleloader just the same. Two of the three of us had never shot one before. He was very good at teaching us how to load it, and I did take the chance and loaded it for my shot.

If you handed me a muzzleloader right now, I wouldn't be able to load it again. I'm not ashamed to admit that. I forgot how to do it. 

A muzzleloader is a process. It takes a while to load if you are inexperienced, and then you get one shot before having to do it all over again. Once you get good at it, you can load it a little faster. But you'd still be faster trying to rapid fire a single shot 22 LR Winchester than you would be with a muzzleloader. They are enough of a pain in the backside that your average thug would use it as a club before they used the shooting function. And if they did try to shoot it, odds are good they'd only hurt themselves! 

A 50 caliber is... loud. Just by the way. A sound suppressor is not going to silence one of these things! 

That's a slicked up advertisement, but as you can see, the main benefit is a reduction in the massive amount of smoke these things let off (a bonus, because the smoke can blind you... if you need to track the deer, you can see where it is running off to quicker and thus put it out of it's misery faster) and reduce the recoil, which can be substantial on these things. It does quiet the report of the rifle. But it doesn't silence it. You can clearly hear the rifle fire. Loudly. 

Again, this sounds like a waste of time and money. Suppressor or not, muzzleloaders are so rarely used in crime that even finding real data on the subject is more difficult than a traditional gun. 

And if the issue is muzzleloaders getting into the hands of felons... again, they are more likely to hurt themselves with the thing than anyone else. And maybe we need to ban 3D printers.

​Which brings us to...

They so like that title they've reused it! This isn't the ghost gun that can fire "30 magazine clip in half a second" like a certain senator became a meme over. 

​This article is going after home builds. And they are firing off more horse manure than Secretariat on Taco Bell. 

Unless you are advocating for the banning of 3D printers and milling equipment, there isn't a whole lot you can do here. As for the kits you can purchase...

Any home build "kit" you purchase is going to include a lower receiver of some kind, whether it is a stripped lower or fully assembled. Normally these "kits" are purchased in parts. You can buy a stripped lower and hang onto it for years before getting the parts to put in it and eventually buying the upper receiver, which includes parts like the barrel. 

But the important part in this story is that lower receiver, stripped or fully assembled. If you purchased that legally... you did it the exact same way you bought a fully functional firearm. Even the stripped lower is considered the firearm in this situation. A stripped lower is just that - it's a chunk of formed metal that includes no parts. No trigger, to springs, no barrel, nothing. It's just a chunk of formed metal. A fully assembled lower has all the parts like a trigger, springs, grip, etc. But no barrel. 

Now, since you can see the differences, go back and take a look at what they both have in common. 

A serial number.

Lowers are serialized. They require a background check and the filing out of the 4473 paperwork you would fill out to purchase any gun. The lower is considered, by the ATF, to be a firearm. That is where all the parts that actually work the gun go. The upper receiver has no parts that actually work the gun. It basically is a barrel and firing pin (that requires a trigger to work). In order to use the upper, you have to have a lower. 

​Can you 3D print or mill a lower receiver? Of course! The legality of it is iffy. But if you are 3D printing or milling your own, there aren't many laws on the books that will stop you. How do you know someone did it until after the crime was committed with it? The only option here is to ban 3D printers and milling equipment for private ownership. 

This is more of the same. The gun control crowd uses misinformation, lack of information, outright lies, propaganda, and fear mongering to elicit a response from people who do not know better and won't take the time to do the research before contacting their elected officials. As always, those of us who know better see this immediately. Those who don't are the ones being swayed and are the ones crying and screaming and talking our reps into taking away our rights. 

Honestly folks, I didn't know whether to put this in the articles section or the humor section on this website. I'm going with articles, because it is both funny and sad at the same time.

The next time someone tells you there is no media bias and the media is trustworthy, show them this clip and drop the mic. Seriously. 

That level of stupidity should black list you from ever working a job in the media again, but it won't. They'll probably win an award or something. 

For those who don't know anything about guns, the "AR-15" in the above video is actually a 12 gauge (I assume) pump action shotgun. Completely different class of firearm. Completely different round. Quick lesson in the differences for you:

This is why I urge people to use multiple sources for their news and do their own research. This was done on purpose. Most people who oppose gun rights don't know a thing about guns. So they have no idea what they saw above was a shotgun. All they saw was complete devastation. Couple that with celebrities and politicians telling them the rounds do things like spin inside the person, are heat seeking rounds, explode on impact, etc., and people who were on the fence, neutral, etc., are now fighting for gun control because they believe this. The media does have an agenda. 

The New York Times published an op-ed that is garnering some attention, and I thought I would take a moment to briefly discuss it. 

In it, the man is basically telling us that after the election of Trump and issues like Charlottesville, he's eventually going to have to have the discussion with his kids about whether they can be friends with white people or not.

Why is that a conversation he is considering having with his children?

The beauty of children is that they really do not hold any bias or racism in themselves. Those things are a learned behavior. They really do get it from their parents. So when kids meet at school, they see other kids. They don't see white kids or black kids or Hispanic kids, etc. They see kids. Sure, they know that these kids don't all look the same and may not look like them. And they'll ask questions of those kids about their skin color or accents or whatever the case may be. But at the end of the day, they are all going to play together no matter what. As they get older, things may change. But again, this is a learned behavior. 

We are also told on a daily basis that we should not judge an entire group of people based on their "group." Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all blacks are criminals. Not all Hispanics are illegal aliens. But time again the entire white race is judged as a whole based on a few, and this is not only accepted but encouraged.

So what is this man's kids actually learning? He isn't teaching them to be open minded and accepting. He isn't teaching them to take people at face value and judge them as individuals. He's teaching them that all white people are out to get them... based off of the actions of a small minority of whites. He is teaching his kids that an entire major political party is based on racism because they don't agree with him. 

He's not only pushing a false narrative onto a future generation; he's halting progress. He probably views himself as a "progressive," but teaching your kids hate and fear based off of an arbitrary thing like skin color is not progress. It's not regressive, either. It's stagnant. It forces us as a people, a culture, and a country to stand still. 

I actually agree with him that he should teach his kids to be skeptical of others. I agree with teaching them to not quickly trust everyone. I agree with teaching them to be cautious. But I do not agree with teaching them to be suspicious of everyone or to judge people by their "groups." 

We as a nation cannot grow and move forward until we learn to take each person as a single entity. We must stop putting everyone in a box and judging them based on that box, or chastising them for getting out of that box. Can your kids be friends with white people? You should encourage them to be. Why? Because bigotry is ended with friendship. When your kid knows one person from a group who isn't, he learns "not all." And his friends from other groups learn the same lesson. 

Stop dividing the country and covering it up as an abundance of caution. It's hatred. It is what you claim to loathe. It is what you claim to be the victim of. And you are grooming your own children for the same victimhood and hatred you yourself have fallen to. 

Instead, encourage that childhood questioning and ignorance of differences. At the end of the day, we're all going to be together because that's how the world works. Your kid will play with any other kid because they are kids, and they don't care about their "groups." Encourage that. Teach your kid that it is OK to ask questions and learn about other cultures and races and religions. But also encourage them to take people at face value. Who is this person in front of you. Not who is the group they belong to, but who are they. What do they believe. How are they treating me. 

My parents always raised me this way. I was told anyone who treated me well was welcome in our home. I brought home friends from every race you can think of. I had friends from a variety of religions. I had friends who wore all black and spiked their hair and wore dog collars as accessories. I had friends who sagged their pants and wore their hats backwards. I had a friend who came over regularly because he loved to play guitar but couldn't afford one and I had two. But as long as they treated me well, my family treated these people like family. Because nothing beyond how they treated me and my family mattered. That is what you should be teaching your kids. Teach them the difference between being treated well and being abused. Your kids will figure out on their own who to hold close and who to get away from, and this lesson will carry them through life. 

​And it won't divide the country any more. It might even start bringing us back together. Imagine that!

It is no secret that media and anti-gunners in general don't tell the general public the full truth about guns and gun crime. Some of it may be due to the fact that they don't know the laws on the books currently and have no idea about guns at all. But those who know nothing about guns and gun laws are the ones trying to sway public opinion and the ones writing bills and voting on them to ban guns and gun accessories. 

Let's discuss some of the more common things that the media and anti-gun politicians have tossed at the general public. Gun rights advocates know the truth, but the general public is being swayed. 

This list is not at all exhaustive. 

Every time there is a shooting, someone brings up scary accessories. And some of them are just made up for effect. Others are greatly exaggerated (like the rest of the gun). We've heard about heat seeking bullets.

Ghost guns.

And many more. Bump stocks have been under fire after the Vegas shooting, an accessory no one thought about until then because they typically don't show up at crime scenes and aren't necessary. "Silencers" (we'll talk about those later). And bad depictions of how actual accessories work, by making up their own scary version of how they work (like CNN's graphic showing how bump stocks work, where they remembered to put a grenade launcher on the gun, but forgot to put a bump stock on it, instead using a standard telescoping stock to show how it works, this way those who don't know any better think every AR-15 they see has a bump stock). 

​And some media outlet is always going to create something else to scare their viewers or readers. The latest? USA Today is warning us about the dangers of chainsaw bayonets! I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. (Update: USA Today "clarified" that the chainsaw bayonet was not used by the Texas shooter. Not that it is a far fetched unusual modification that isn't commercially available, and only used by about 3 people who took the time to make one themselves). 

There is always going to be someone out there who comes up with something they want to try. Has there ever been a chainsaw bayonet? Yes. People have modified chainsaws to fit onto an AR-15. They aren't very practical due to weight and issues getting the chainsaw fired up. But they aren't commercially available to the best of my knowledge. I have never seen a chainsaw bayonet for sale anywhere. And let's be real, with enough ingenuity, you could modify a chainsaw to mount to the front of your car. 

This is one that just won't die. Politicians and the media swear that this loophole exists. Let's touch on online sales first. Part of my last job in a gun store was actually handling online sales (I worked gun shows, too, but that wasn't much different from working in the store). The media and gun grabbers want you to believe that you can go online and buy a gun, then have it sent directly to your house with no background checks. 

That just isn't true. One time I sold a gun to a guy online and sent it to his house, all of which was legal. How was that accomplished? It was a musket. It was an actual musket. To be specific, it was a Harper's Ferry musket that had a confederate stamp on it because it was taken and eventually used by the confederate army. It was a black powder rifle that was an antique, and not considered a gun under Federal law.

Online sales - through dealers or auction sites - require that the gun be shipped to an FFL dealer (licensed dealer) near the buyer so they can go in and fill out the paperwork and have their background check done. Any sale that ends with the gun being shipped to someone's house is already illegal. Law on the books illegal. 

Gun shows work pretty much the same way. If you are buying, paperwork and background checks are being done. Trust me, I've had the horror of doing background checks via an unreliable cell phone signal in a loud as hell gun show. It has to be done. Some curio dealers don't need a license, but they are generally selling guns the government doesn't classify as a gun, such as the above mentioned musket. 

What these people are actually trying to end is private sales. Which brings us to...

Universal background checks. They are being deemed as the end of private sales. It is also the end of being able to pass your collection on to your kids - like millions of Americans do - without getting several government agencies and a lot of money involved. Meaning, when I - a gun owner already - was approached by my mom about taking her gun collection because she has become too handicapped to handle them anymore, under this background check system I would not have been able to do that. My mom lives with me because of her handicaps, so I already reside with these guns as well as my own. Since she is living, we could have easily handled it by going to the gun store and doing an in store transfer, costing as much as a new handgun to go through that. But if I had inherited guns after she passed away, they would have had to be confiscated before all of that. Because of the nature of confiscations, it could be years before I see those guns again. No, literally years. And if universal background checks pass, when my mom does eventually pass away, I'll still have to do that. I'll have to allow those firearms to be confiscated - if I haven't already sold them, which one was sold - and go through what could be years of work to get them back. And, as is often the case, they may not be in one piece or in fireable condition when they do come back to me. 

​Now, this statistic itself. 

The other fact is that the poll was worded in their favor. It asked people if they support background checks to purchase a firearm. 

Most Americans do. I support background checks on firearms. I don't support putting another background check law on the books that mimics the law already there, nor do I support having to go through these loops for inherited guns when I already have a legally purchased and licensed collection of my own. My mom should be able to give me her gun if she wants to. My mom knows who I am and what I've done. If she didn't, it is on her to refuse me her gun. 

It is, basically, a feel good law that brings money to the government and not much else. As I said, it mimics laws already on the books. And the background checks didn't stop the Texas church shooter, did they? They didn't stop the Vegas shooter. They didn't stop a lot of mass shooters.

Done. Next!

Actually, let's be fair. This is a huge deal right now with media and gun grabbers, and people not in the know about guns are all in a tissy about fully automatic weapons, and they really do believe the average AR-15 is a full auto. Because they are being told repeatedly by the media and politicians they trust that they are. Now, the "ghost gun" in the video above appears to be a short barreled rifle. Whether or not it is fully automatic, I couldn't tell you by looking at it from here. 

The short barreled rifle is illegal for normal civilian purchase. It requires an expensive tax stamp and background checks that can take one to two years to complete. If you do pass that and get one, that tax stamp needs to be renewed. I believe yearly (correct me if I'm wrong, I forget the time on the stamp). It's a tax. 

If the gun is full auto, it's the same. One to two years for the background checks, an expensive tax stamp you have to keep paying on, and then add in the cost of the rifle... with all of this, you still can't buy a brand new one, it has to have been made prior to 1986. For those who don't want to do the math, it means any full auto you purchase can be no younger than 31 years old as of right now. The average price of this at least 31 year old rifle? $20,000. Short barreled rifles and shotguns can be had newer and cheaper. But for those who don't know... shorter barrels mean lower accuracy. And they are still big guns, so concealability is also not increased. 

The vast majority of people who apply to own one of these 31 year old rifles are denied. It's actually not very common that a person passes and is given the go ahead to purchase. Most don't make it past the first round, which is getting the local sheriff to sign off on it.

Anyway, the senator's "ghost gun?" If it is fully automatic, it's completely illegal for citizen ownership. Why? It appears to be newer technology, which means the gun isn't 31 years old. Even with those background checks and tax stamps, you still can't buy it. Period. 

After every mass shooting, all eyes turn to the NRA. The "gun lobby." Remember, the NRA exists because of the American citizen members. So the "gun lobby" and the "NRA" is us. 

The NRA is blamed for all of this despite no mass shooters ever being members of the NRA, and despite NRA members having stopped crimes and shootings, most recently the Texas church shooting. 

What they are actually doing is blaming the NRA for doing what it's members are members for - stopping nonsense gun control laws. To hear politicians, you'd think the NRA was a completely stand alone entity with no citizen support at all. But that isn't the case. We join the NRA because they are supposed to prevent repeat gun laws from being added to the books 60 times and still not being enforced, and to stop sweeping gun bans like the useless assault weapons ban and handgun bans that have been proposed. The assault weapons ban was tried. Even the Clinton administration admitted it had zero effect on gun crime. It didn't have the results they had desired. Now we want the NRA to stop them from enacting it again, because it is a do nothing law that requires people to turn in their private and legally owned property, especially if they have never committed a crime with or without that rifle. The gun grabbers have decided expanding it instead would work out better than the first time they tried it.

The NRA works hard to teach gun laws and gun safety. A lot of their programs are teaching programs. And we pay for those, too. The hero in Texas was an NRA instructor. That means he teaches people how to be safe with guns and how to shoot them correctly. The government should be encouraging things like the NRA's Eddie Eagle program to teach kids how to be safe around guns so less accidents occur with our children. They aren't teaching them to shoot, just how to be safe if guns are present. That isn't a bad thing!

The media and our gun grabbing politicians apparently like shooter movies. Because "silencers" don't exist.

Sound suppressors. That is what they actually are. They are designed to quiet - not silence - a gun. You can't physically do that. Sorry. It's science. You can't silence a huge gun. 

The closest thing you can get is a 22 LR, but you'll still hear the sound of the slide as well as the round being fired. No, you can't suppress a revolver unless it is a Nagant revolver. The Nagant revolver's cylinder moves forward to close the gap, thus making it possible to suppress one. Any other revolver won't effectively be suppressed because the explosion from the round comes through the gap. 

A suppressor on any other firearm is still loud enough to require hearing protection. A suppressor on a full auto will literally melt. So when Hillary told you the Vegas shooting could have been worse because of "silencers," she was wrong. Very wrong. 

​And sorry, but the nearly silent shotgun in "No Country for Old Men" simply isn't possible. 

As I said, this isn't an exhaustive list, just some of the ones that seem to not want to go away. The media and the gun grabbers have an agenda. You'll hear "no one wants to take your guns" a lot. The fact is, a lot of our politicians would completely ban all guns in a hot minute if they could. They'd call for a confiscation if they could. And gun control is done in small doses. I have said before and will keep saying... it is never enough. Once they get one victory, they don't stop to celebrate; they move to the next gun control. 

And your average gun grabbing citizen has gotten more hostile. The last time I mentioned guns on YouTube I got a death threat that was apparently harsh enough for YouTube to remove it themselves before I got to read the whole thing. Dana Loesch had to move her entire family at a moment's notice because of threats. Folks wantonly call for the death of gun owners on social media, as lightly as they talk about their day. Apparently, the act of owning a gun is worthy of the death penalty to these people, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of gun owners have never committed any type of crime. 

Take the time to educate. Don't yell and scream... just correct bad information. Convince someone to go to the range with you. Take part in projects like Operation Blazing Sword. Not everyone is going to listen or believe your corrections. But do it anyway. And never let your guard down. It doesn't matter who is in the White House... don't let your guard down. 

My town, unsurprisingly, went totally democrat. I say unsurprisingly because the town is full of people who had to move south because the companies they worked for picked up and moved, and they so hate being here that they are doing everything they possibly can to destroy the nice small town this was and turn it into an over crowded, expensive, crime riddled crap hole like the ones they just left. These people are actually viscously fighting to have grocery stores put in... in a town where we literally have seven extremely large grocery stores in a one mile strip of road; not a square mile, a one mile strip. But we need more. 

To be fair, neither side was offering anything different. They were both promising more over development and no improvements to the infrastructure. I literally wrote my dog in for mayor. My mom made me pull over at the polling place I took her to so she could have words with the guy who ended up winning mayor because his campaign called her house 9 times in one hour last night and she was pissed off. When she was done, I shook his hand and told him if he won he would get to know me really well, and if he didn't believe me, drop my name to the current and previous mayors, then duck. A current city council member was there and laughed when he heard that and then came over to say hi. So yeah, it was one of those types of election days and it's that type of town.

So what else happened, because no one cares about my little town. Well, NYC had a chance to take out the garbage, but instead they reelected it. Again, not surprising. They did elect this guy after having Bloomberg in office, so obviously they enjoy grabbing their ankles to government. 

​Virginia decided that the 2018 election cycle would be best served by telling the democrats that running racist, vile advertisements based on "the white southern guys are trying to kill you with their trucks because you look different" is the way to go because it works. So way to go, Virginia. If you thought the 2016 election was over the top, wait until 2018! I can see race relations are not improving.

I don't know what everyone else's ballots looked like today, but I was disappointed in mine. Far too many people were running unopposed. We have a city council member who was running unopposed who should not be on the city council. This guy regularly gets busted for shoplifting, and it is always in businesses in the town he is supposed to be representing. And it is not a secret. It's always in the newspaper and on the evening news. And they not only keep reelecting him, this time no one ran against him! Pretty much our entire city council was unopposed. 

Folks, I might be asking a lot here, but it might be time for some of us to stand up and run for office. I'm not kidding. I'm not saying to jump into the race for governor or president or anything like that. But maybe we all need to take over our city councils. City councils go largely ignored, but they play heavily in our everyday lives. Maybe after that some folks will move on up in the political scene, maybe some will stay where they are. But it might be time. If we want to "drain the swamp," we might just have to do it ourselves. 

I am honestly considering running for office in the next election. City council. There's a good chance I won't win, but maybe I will. I could get my NJ accent up in there with my libertarian voter registration and see what happens. To be fair, I am getting ready to attempt to go back to school (I am going to try to get into law school, wish me luck), so I'll need to see what the work load is before I run for office. I might have to wait until I graduate to run. But I think now is the time. New faces. A different way of thinking and speaking. Something to offer. Hey, most of us here are just regular people, right? We need some of that in office. We've needed it for a good long time. And you might not win. But we need to start trying. 

If you noticed all the updates to the last post here - or woke up this morning - you are most likely aware that the story behind the Texas church shooter is evolving. It has been very confusing from the get go due to the journalistic excellence of our mainstream media who is more concerned with being first than being right. 

The biggest issue is the mystery surrounding his military service. Well, it turns out this guy was in the US Air Force. Originally, it was released that he had been dishonorably discharged, which was big news, because a dishonorable discharge automatically disqualifies you from purchasing firearms by legal means. But... he bought his firearms from licensed dealers. What gives? And at least one was a giant sporting goods store, not your local mom and pop gun store (although, let's be fair. At the mom and pop, the sales people can at least find their butts with a map when it comes to gun and gun law knowledge. That isn't always the case in these big sporting goods places). 

The story was then corrected to say he had a bad behavior discharge after being locked up for domestic violence against his then wife and his child. Sooo.... let's look at the 4473 again.

Bust out your reading glasses and scroll down to question 11i. "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" A yes check on that question immediately ends the sale.

Great! All he has to do is check "no," right? No. It should have shown up in his NICS background check that he had served time under the military for domestic violence, and as such, he should have failed his background check. 

But that didn't happen.

At least four times.

Where was the disconnect? He was denied a concealed carry permit in Texas. So what showed up during that check that barred him from getting the carry license that didn't show up when he was purchasing his guns? Why did this not show up in the NICS database? It was supposed to. Is it an issue with NICS or an issue with the military? 

Sounds to me like this is less of a gun control issue and more of an issue with enforcing laws already on the books. It also appears your "universal background check" idea may have some holes. 

And there's the biggest issue with gun control advocates. David Frum here doesn't seem to know it is already a law on the books. If you have been convicted of domestic violence, you can't legally purchase a firearm. For the rest of your life. A lot of the laws being pushed by gun control advocates are, in fact, laws already on the books that no one has bothered to enforce. Maybe it's time to learn the laws before running your mouth, and then let's get together and get the government talking about enforcing the laws!

How did this guy fall through the cracks in the system? How did this not get added to the database as it appears to have not been? How was this guy able to legally purchase four firearms in two states that he was actually federally bared from buying?!

Universal background checks are a huge talking point right now because of the imaginary gun show loophole, where gun grabbers tell us we can walk into any gun show anywhere in the USA and buy any gun from a black powder to a fully automatic machine gun without any type of background check at all. What they actually want is a law to do away with private sales - which don't require a gun show - and the ability to pass your firearms down to your children. But since this guy was able to get his guns despite the background check when he shouldn't have, how does that help? How would that have prevented this tragedy? Or the Las Vegas shooting? Or any gang violence in the USA today?

What they need to figure out is how this happened. Find the disconnect. It may be time to overhaul the NICS system. It may also be time to find a way to get government agencies communicating with each other.

That conviction should have been in his file. It should have showed up on a NICS check. The sale should have been denied by the FBI immediately. Once that denial was made, police should have been dispatched to pick him up for attempting to purchase a firearm when he wasn't legally allowed to. That is the law currently on the books. 

In my seven years working in a gun store, they never arrested any of the people involved in any of the attempted straw sales we reported. People who did show up as felons were not arrested (felons aren't even allowed in the parking lot of a gun store, so that alone was an arrestable offense, let alone the fact that they attempted to purchase a firearm). I witnessed two arrests during my career. One was a felon unlawfully in a gun store, and they only did that because the guy was mentally ill and went off his rocker in the store. The other was actually after a background check, but the guy apparently had several warrants and was wanted by two different federal agencies. But we called to report attempted straw sales all the time. We averaged about five a week (it was a sizable and popular store). We had denied background checks all the time. No arrests were ever made, even though the laws on the books - and the posters the stores are required to hang up - say it is required.

So why are we talking about more gun control when we aren't enforcing the laws on the books already?!

Update 11/6/17 10:19 PM: It appears the Air Force is giving us a lesson in the meaning of FUBAR. According to multiple reports, the Air Force did not flag his criminal history, which did not get the information to NICS. The Pentagon is investigating. 

Watch the video here.