Not long ago, I shared a story about Brown University allowing graduate students to "self identify as students of color." It is unclear how this will affect admissions or how they are going to go about this. It also doesn't make much sense in the explanations as to why they are doing this that I have read. 

In light of this, Campus Reform asked students on video about their opinion on this. Have a look:

Now, apparently, this isn't going to be challenged, or at least this is what we are left to assume. Which leaves me with several concerns. Would Rachel Dolezal be admitted to the school as a black student, even though it is well known she is actually a white woman with a mental issue? 

How is this going to affect affirmative action? Some folks claim this will kill affirmative action, but I don't personally think it will. I think it will over extend it because of students taking advantage of it. I think it will eventually cost all of us.  

People wouldn't take advantage of it, you say? Sure they will! Just ask Vijay Chokal-Ingam, an Indian-American who decided that, as an Indian-American, his grades would not allow him into medical school, but if he was black they certainly would. He was accepted to medical school as a black student, and then wrote an article about it, also including all the racism he endured as a black man to take the attention off the fact that he gamed the system for his own benefit.

Since there are about 59,000 genders, what stops folks from making up 59,000 new races that everyone is going to have to accept? When I was in high school, one of the black girls told me I wasn't white, I was pink, and therefore had my own race, the pink people (no, I wasn't even slightly offended). So can I declare myself part of the pink race? As a member of the pink race, I am a minority. Do I qualify for affirmative action? Pink is a color, I'm a person of color. Also, us pink people tend to burn really easily in the sun, can I claim that as a disability, too? 

Now, if we aren't going to allow made up races, that's fine. We can roll with what we have. According to the DNA test I took, I actually have DNA that says I am African and Asian. I'm about 2% Asian and 1% African, but since I'm allowed to self identify, I am going to claim minority status. Hey, I'm tri-racial, right? And I have a DNA test to prove it. And since, for some reason, people who have multiple races seem to think they have to identify as one or the other instead of both, maybe I'll decide to identify as African. This could become a problem, since I believe most people who take that DNA test find they have some percentage of African in them. 

But do we see how this could be a problem? 

Look. I'm not saying that a DNA test should be required to prove someone's ethnicity. Not at all. A lot of people strongly object to those DNA tests, and I completely understand why and don't think they should be forced to take one. But if you are going in on affirmative action, you should need to supply some kind of information on family history. That alone would disqualify someone like Rachel Dolezal, because her parents were white and there was no record of an adoption.

I don't personally think affirmative action should be in place anymore, because I do believe people of color are more than capable of getting into schools on their own merit and can be held to the same standards as anyone else. But I am also realistic enough to know it isn't going anywhere anytime soon because so many people think these folks can't accomplish these things on their own, and somehow that isn't racist or offensive. But if you are going in on affirmative action, you should be able to supply something that proves you are who you say you are. Vijay Chokal-Ingram even went in using his middle name instead of his legal name so he could pass as black. How was that not caught?! 

As long as affirmative action is in place, shouldn't it be going to those it is supposed to go to? Yes, it's unfair towards certain groups, but that was the original intent, and at one point, it probably did some good, making sure certain groups had access to education and work. But unfair to some groups or not, it's there. If you don't like it, fight to end it. Otherwise, live with it. When you decide to "self identify" as something you may not be, and it goes unchecked, you are actually taking the spot away from someone else. What Vijay did was for his own benefit. And he may have knocked someone else out of medical school who may or may not have deserved the spot more than he did. But he lied for his own gain and isn't sorry. Rachel Dolzal is the same. The woman lied her way to the top of the NAACP! And who knows what other benefits she received for not only being black, but being a black woman! And how many people lost out because of these people? 

Call me untrusting, but I don't believe people who do this sort of thing - identify as something they aren't - always have good intentions. I do believe some folks really believe they are what they aren't. But I also think a lot of these people want something out of it. Vijay got into medical school when his grades weren't there. These weirdos who are "trans-disabled" are, most likely, collecting disability checks from the government. A trans-woman could, in theory, use affirmative action to their benefit. All of these people get attention, some of it mainstream. Where does it stop? Once you allow one group to claim, legally, that they are what they aren't, you don't really have a leg to stand on with the rest. Yeah, I guess Rachel Dolezal is black because she says she is, and you should give her affirmative action as a black lady even though she's whiter than I am. And I guess what Vijay did was OK, too, because if gender can be fluid, why can't race? Maybe he actually was a black man during medical school, but his race is fluid, so he's Indian again now. DNA doesn't matter. It can't. It doesn't mean anything for gender, so it can't mean anything for race or anything else, either. 

So I guess I'm a one legged Chinese man now. Feels good to be my true self. Where's my money? 

This is something I was thinking on today while reading through a group I am a member of on Facebook. The group is a fan page for a guy who makes a bunch of different series on YouTube. I originally began following him several years ago because of his urban exploration videos, but since that time, he has grown and does a few series, very little urban exploration these days. 

The guy's intention is to actually be a director of some kind. And the videos he produces require a lot of work. He's got professional equipment, he travels to locations usually on the eastern side of the USA, and he does all his own research and editing. His videos require a lot of time, in filming and editing but also in research. Some of them can be very expensive as well, with travel expenses and equipment upkeep. 

Some time back he began a series on testing out hotel rooms. He basically goes to cheaper hotels and tears them apart. They are usually pretty nasty, but they vary on levels of worth it for the low cost to really should be shut down regardless of how cheap it is. These are usually places the homeless can afford to stay for a while and things like that, and according to him, he himself at one time was living in one of these places. But his test of the room can take 8 to 10 hours with three people, and he uses the general safety equipment, but also has Luminol to test for blood and kits to test for drugs. The series has become very popular, even garnering attention in newspapers and some TV news. He has even successfully had one or two of the worst cases shut down. 

Because of the blood and drugs, I assume, a good portion of his videos get demonetized by YouTube. However, in a stroke of good luck, his hotel series was picked up by Amazon! He can now show the series there, available to Amazon Prime members. So the other day, he made the announcement that the series was moving there exclusively. However, if you donated $1 a month to his Patreon, you could get a special link to watch the series anyway if you didn't have Amazon Prime.  

What followed was a drama I could not believe. Post after post appeared with people whining about how they were leaving because they could never watch any of his stuff again because he was restricting it to only people who could afford Amazon Prime. People made well meaning suggestions on how to get discounts or how it might be cheaper to just donate $1 a month to his Patreon for the special link, but every suggestion was pitifully declined. The sadness kept flowing, with story after story about how much they loved him and felt betrayed because he was no longer going to be uploading the series - just one series out of many - to his YouTube channel for them to watch absolutely free of charge. 

And I sat there with my mouth open. I know how much it costs me to run this website and everything else I have running in conjunction with it. That would be "more than I am willing to openly admit." I know how much more it would cost me if I did all the stuff I wanted to do, things like traveling for rallies, heading up to D.C. to cover events and newsworthy happenings, etc. I can't afford to do any of that. But it's a dream. So I know what this particular guy is thinking. He's dreaming big. His dreams seem to be taking shape somewhat, although slowly. But what he spends to make those videos is, most likely, 10 times what I am spending, if not more. 

Now, I subject my readers and viewers to ads. On this website. YouTube demonetizes me, too. But here, I subject everyone to ads and affiliate links. This guy is restricted by what YouTube is willing to monetize, Patreon donations, and the sale of some snapshots he takes on his trips. That's what he's using to pay his bills and keep making his videos. And because of the massive scope of his videos and projects, it is his main job (some of these videos can take weeks to put together). 

What does all of this have to do with accepting socialism? If it hasn't already become clear, the tie in is that people feel that they are entitled to what you have and services you provide simply because they exist and want it. Instead of being excited for this guy because one of his series got picked up by Amazon, they are guilt tripping him - successfully, I'm afraid - into handing over his services to them for free. They expect him to spend whatever he has to to create content - that they will complain to him if it isn't produced often enough for them - but don't want to supply any form of payment for that service. They expect it to come often and free. And if that should change, where he begins charging even for a small portion, they feel as though they are being betrayed. By virtue of them watching his videos, it is owed to them for free, even if it means it eventually drives him out of the business all together because he can't afford to sustain it. 

People are willing to destroy someone else to get what they have for free. And they don't even realize it. A lot of the whining posts were people seeking out those who felt the same and were also an attempt to get him to cancel putting the series on Amazon. They put no thought into how expensive that particular series is, and they don't seem to care. They aren't paying for it. And the refuse to pay for when asked. And they don't care that he has goals he wants to reach in his chosen profession, and instead of wishing him well, they demand he cancel those steps forward to provide for them for free. 

We have an entire segment of society right now that feels that way about everyone and everything else. Whatever they want is now a human right and should be paid for by others. These mysterious others are never taken into consideration. Who are they? How are they going to pay for it? What happens when they run out of money? 

And, of course, the other aspect. If there is nothing to be gained, why would one provide those services? In the case of this guy, if he is prevented from taking steps forward and from making back the money he spends, why would he continue? How can he continue? At some point, if he spends without brining anything in, he will have to put this on hold to take on a job outside of the industry, and he'll stop producing content. He'll never advance in his current career. And somehow, this segment of society doesn't grasp this concept. If you can't survive... if the money runs out... the service vanishes. 

This is for all segments of society, not just stuff like this. If debts can't be paid... if the money dries up... if a living can't be made... Services stop. Innovation stops. New things don't get created. Old things don't get upgraded. 

But we're at a point where an entire segment of society can't see beyond their own wants. They can't see how a socialist society would slow progress and stifle growth. That's always someone else's responsibility. But that someone else is eventually going to disappear. 

For the past few months, we have sat in our living rooms and watched as Hollywood celebrities, politicians, and journalists have been taken down one by one on sexual misconduct accusations. Everything from inappropriate conversations to outright sexual assault and pedophilia has been pushed across our screens. The #MeToo Campaign even got awarded Time Magazine's person of the year. But is all of this doing anything for women?
 
Well, most likely, no. While we hear a lot about accusations, resignations, lost jobs, and ended careers, we aren't hearing a whole lot about litigation. There aren't many stories of charges being pressed or real legal investigations being done - there are some, but not nearly as many as you would expect with the daily barrage.
 
And the daily barrage is a big part of the problem, too. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if I am the only woman on Earth who hasn't been sexually harassed by a public figure. Or... was I, but I didn't realize it?!
 
In all seriousness, though. We are watching this come across our screens regularly. We've all had a public figure that we respected or at least enjoyed a lot get taken down in this. I won't lie, I was devastated when Bill Cosby was called out - one of the few actually being legally charged and tried for his crimes. I grew up watching Bill Cosby on TV. I had a record (yes, an actual record, don't judge me) of one of his standup routines that I listened to so much I actually wore the thing out. Bill Cosby was almost a part of my family. And I've watched many others go down since then.
 
What is it doing to us as a whole? The proponents of the campaign tout awareness. Well, we're aware. We know sexual misconduct in all of its forms happens. We know it happens rather often. We also now know that just the act of accusing someone can end a career or work in your favor in a political race. We are also aware that the accused doesn't stand a chance. Even if there is an investigation and he's proven innocent, his life is ruined. We are also aware that actual legal action is apparently not as important as destroying someone in the media.
 
We are also aware that any sexual misconduct that isn't male vs. female won't get the same attention. Men accusing women or men accusing other men get pushed aside and get very little air time. Just in the past week, a woman came out and said she was sexually assaulted by a female musician, and that got almost no airtime at all. The female musician is also still employed, to the best of my knowledge. She's made a few statements, on Twitter mostly, but her career doesn't appear to be over. 

But the reality here is also this: we're becoming desensitized. This is becoming so common that we're starting to say "Oh, there goes another one." No one is shocked anymore. No one is surprised. And I wonder how many people are even paying attention.
 
It is also bringing up a lot of questions. How many of these accusations are false? There were some gains to be had in some of these accusations, which does force one to stop and think. What is being done to actually prevent this in the future? What is going to happen to due process? We've chosen the court of public opinion over the legal system, and that isn't exactly constitutional. How is this going to affect the everyday lives of men and women? How can women continue to work and thrive in a professional setting when everyone is scared to death of being accused of something, so they just avoid each other? How is this going to play out in future accusations? There are so many now that more and more people are becoming skeptical. Is this going to make it harder for people in the future who have real problems that need real help? How much of this is actual harassment or assault, and how much is people being over sensitive or politically correct? This is also a side effect of everyone being offended by everything.
 
I am not, under any circumstances, saying the accusations are all false. But I want to point out the fact that when you have a constant barrage of them, non-stop, people do become desensitized to it, and they do start asking questions. We are, apparently, not allowed to not believe a woman when she says she was sexually harassed or assaulted. Due process is not allowed... she's not lying, period. Well, that isn't going to hold out well. There have been several cases of sexual assault that have been reported and were huge news, only to be later discovered to be untrue. And there are a lot that don't make national headlines as well.
 
If you have been sexually assaulted, go to the police. Period. Press charges. Get the bastard in front of a judge. Don't wait 40 years to say something. Don't go to the media and make a scene, and then let it go. Help other women - and men - who have been victims, but do it through the legal system. This has become a witch hunt, and all the questions and all the coverage are actually not helping women - and men - who need the help. It is making their lives harder. It is going to be harder for women to be believed in the future. It is going to be harder for women to get along in the workplace. It is going to be harder for women to advance. This isn't helping women, it is hurting.
 
Yes, your intentions may be good. But now we are faced with new challenges. A lot of people are asking a lot of questions. Or they are tuning it out all together. These things are not accomplishing what you want. It isn't raising awareness, it isn't helping victims, it isn't doing anything for women. It is making people turn the other way. It's no longer shocking. It's just a soap opera now.

These lawsuits always aggravate the hell out of me. Right off the bat, I'll say this: I don't think they have a leg to stand on and I can't believe a lawyer took this case. 

​I can completely understand the families that decided to sue the Air Force in this shooting. The shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm, but was able to because the Air Force neglected to get his information into this system. So NICS was not aware that he'd served 12 months for domestic violence. So yeah, in this case, I can understand the families suing. 

But I will never understand the logic behind suing gun manufacturers and gun stores. 

In this case, the families are saying Academy Sports should not have sold the gun(s) to this guy. On what grounds? Do you have undeniable proof that they were aware before selling the guns to this guy that he had criminal intent? Gun store sales people do, in fact, keep an eye out for any red flags. But they aren't psychic. If the guy went into the store and used any words that would allude to his history or intent, those would have been red flags. And yes, people are dumb enough to tell the sales person about criminal intentions. Not all, but a lot of them do. 

Now, there are things here that the sales person could have done wrong. 

1. Did the shooter at any point admit that he'd been convicted of domestic abuse? 
2. Did the shooter at any point admit that he'd served time?
3. Did he at some point hint that he might have done either of the above?
4. Did the shooter at any point say he had an intent to commit a crime? Did he tell the sales guy he wanted to kill family members or commit a mass shooting?
5. Did he at some point express admiration or understanding with previous mass shooters?
6. Did he get antsy about the questions on the paperwork, maybe asking what would happen if he lied on it?

If any of the above happened, he should have been sent out the door empty handed. If he wasn't, the store is liable and the sales person will find themselves being questioned intensely in court (they may be either way. Gun store sales people end up in court occasionally because of this crap). 

How do you prove it? There's got to be something in writing (like he checked yes on the paperwork next to the questions about his domestic violence convictions), the conversation had to have been recorded, or there has to be a credible witness to the conversation. 

If none of those things can be produced, Academy Sports can't be found liable. Now, obviously, anything can happen in a court room. But the bottom line is, as of right now, we have no proof that Academy Sports did anything other then sell a gun legally to a guy who passed a Federal background check. They had no way of knowing his intent, nor did they have any way of knowing his history. If the background check comes back and clean and the sales person had no red flags, there was no reason to not sell the gun to the guy. 

You can't ask a gun sales person to assume everyone buying a gun is going to commit a crime or kill someone. The vast majority of legally purchased guns are not used in crimes. And if they assume every customer is a criminal... they aren't going to stay in business by denying sales to everyone who comes in. 

Real gun stores are not like movie gun stores. They aren't owned by and staffed with people who are so anti-government they'd do anything to stick it to "the man." They are usually pro-gun (I say usually because, oddly enough, we had someone who was anti-gun working in the shop I worked at. I still don't get that). They are usually conservative. You'll have a mixed batch of folks from that point on, but at the end of the day, they all know certain things. 

1. This person in front of me may commit a crime. I have to try to figure out if that is their intention or not and act accordingly.
2. If this person in front of me does commit a crime, I'm going to have to live with that the rest of my life.
3. If I sell a gun to this person, can I defend that decision in court successfully? 

That's what they're working with. They have no crystal ball. Their job is to make money for the shop, like any other business. But they also understand they are the last line of defense if this person does have ill intent. It's a heavy responsibility. 

So if the court finds against Academy Sports in this case, I will not only be disheartened about it, but angry. Academy Sports broke no laws. And, as always, we should not punish everyone in the country and remove rights from them because of a choice few. 

Folks want to blame political correctness for the lacking sense of humor in our country, and I agree. Political correctness has dealt a major blow to our sense of humor. But something else has changed. I'm not sure if PC culture has permeated absolutely everything to the point that we almost don't notice it, or if people in general are just getting nastier. 

Case in point. A few days ago, I posted a short piece in the "Home" section of this site about the ever ongoing battle about who drives better in the snow, the northerners or the southerners. For those who are not cursed with this battle every single friggin' year, let me get you up to speed. The northerners claim they drive better due to having done it for a longer period of time. The south claims they do because they are more cautious. The truth is, the northerners are used to well salted and well plowed roads and it doesn't snow much down south. The south doesn't have the practice, but the northerners come down south where the roads are sanded and hardly plowed at all and think they know what they are doing, which usually also comes with showing off because everyone has to see how much better they are at this. And every year, roads are lined with cars in ditches, and those cars are driven by people from both regions. Bottom line, they all suck at driving in the snow. 

Because this battle is usually good natured, I chimed in with my small quick thought piece. I also made a comment on a Facebook group that was, ironically, a humor group. I'm a "damn yankee." A "damn yankee" is a yankee that came down south and never left. So I have experienced winters in both places. 

Oh, boy! Apparently, the humor was lost in my good natured ribbing. I got emails, private messages, my profile was picked over, and comments were left on the group board for me. I'll show you those comments. 

Also note, not a single one of those people responded to my responses to them. 

Now, one of my good friends is actually a tow truck driver by profession, and we rib each other because he swears 98% of the people he pulls out of snowy ditches are from up north, and I know that statement is pure hogwash because he's deaf to southern accents in the snow. But it's good natured. These battles usually are, or they are supposed to be.

Suddenly, if you dare question how amazing anyone is at anything, the butt hurt meter flies into the red. Of course I'm better at this than everyone else! How dare you question that!

What is going on in our nation? Is it the political climate? We seem to be hating on each other a lot recently, to the point where no one will have anything to do with anyone who disagrees with them. Is it the media constantly telling us we all hate each other because of the boxes we have been placed in, even though we can't find much real life evidence of that? Is it the social media lifestyle where we have lost our ability to actually connect with each other and see each other as more than a screen name with no feelings?

Whatever it is, we seem to have lost our ability to spot humor and sarcasm. That's bad news for me. I've angered a lot of people this way and didn't mean to. For those who don't personally know me, I have a very dry sense of humor, and I can convey a humorous story, satire, or the most outrageous BS you've ever heard with a straight face as if it were 100% for real. At one time, that made me the life of the party. Now, it seems to rile people to the point of almost violence because I've offended them in some mundane way. 

I hear people make comments - and I make them myself - about how people are offended by everything these days. Sadly, it's true. The response to jokes, as you saw above, was an immediate fight. People right away assumed I was attacking them instead of seeing the good natured ribbing it was. And it got to the point where even I had to abandon the joke and go on the defense. 

How do we get our sense of humor back? I'm not sure. And I'm not sure I'll see it return in my lifetime. And that makes me sad. I'm not going to stop joking around, but I promise that while knowing I am going to face more offended fighters than people laughing along with me. It's hurting our country, and it will only get worse. The lack of humor will divide us further. Offense drives people apart. And at some point, we're all going to realize that we're kind of alone, because the joke makers have pissed everyone off, and the offended snowflakes are no longer speaking to anyone because their feelings got hurt. 

​It might seem like a strange thing to say, but if we want to save our nation, we need to save our sense of humor. We need to laugh again. 

The numbers are in and what may have been the hottest election topic since the 2016 presidential election is now over. Roy Moore was sent into the corn field, much to the surprise of a lot of folks, including the media. And Alabama has elected a democrat for the first time in 25 years. 

Watch this, alt-left: oh well. The republicans lost. We'll have to live with the results and try again in the next election. See? That's not so hard! And I didn't even need to bust out any coffee shop windows to do it! A Christmas miracle!

​I didn't discuss the Alabama election or Roy Moore much here. But now that the election is over and he's gone, I want to address some things. Here's what we can expect:

1. No, this isn't as much a statement against Trump as it is a statement against Moore. The liberal media will have their smiles on today, telling us the people have made a statement about Trump and this means a 2018 landslide for the democrats. Actually, no. The people made a statement about Roy Moore. Whether they believed the allegations against him or not, the people spoke, and the race was so close you could barely stick a pin through the difference. It was hardly a statement about anything, to be honest. 
2. The allegations themselves. I'm not going to speculate and say whether or not the allegations are true. I'm not a lawyer (yet) and don't have access to the evidence or accusers. What I am going to say is this: the republicans better start hiring legal council and start doing some homework before 2018, because this sexual assault witch hunt is going to pick right back up or continue into the 2018 elections. We now know the strategy works, and you can bet it is going to be utilized again. The next time a democrat wants a seat they think they are going to have a tough time getting, expect the republican candidate to have touched someone 40 years ago. 
3. Expect the allegations against Trump to ramp into overdrive as well. I would expect more women will come forward, because that has, so far, been the record. When a few don't work, more keep trickling in until we're being beaten over the head with it. The allegations will get worse, too. In elections, people may vote because they believe the allegations or just because they don't want it to "damage the party." But with Trump, they have 2020 to think  about (and with their main candidates, as of today, being Biden and Sanders, this is a concern for them), and before that, the Russia crap isn't going anywhere, the obstruction thing isn't going anywhere, and the dossier isn't going anywhere, and they are desperate to get Trump out of office. They are already saying what we expected, "Al Franken sort of resigned, Trump should, too!" 
4. Expect the republicans to have less backbone than usual. Regardless of them being in control of Congress, Senate, and the White House, they will take this election to mean they need to bend over backwards for the extreme left agenda more than they already do. 

2018 is literally weeks away. The election cycle is going to start pretty darn soon. You need to keep up with your reps, get out and get loud. Start talking to people, especially those who don't pay much attention to what's going on, but still vote. Now is a time to become a writer, and start getting your editorials published. 

And our government officials need to start doing their homework. They need to hire legal council and start finding any surprises in their history. At this point, we know the sexual misconduct accusations are coming because it works. Get ahead of it so you have proof it is false or can capitulate when it is true. You, the citizen, need to do the same. If you find your reps are corrupt, perverts, anything along those lines, you need to start pushing a better candidate to replace them. We don't need to elect crappy candidates. We can always find someone better. If you want the swamp drained, you need to help. 

Ignore the media. You know what's coming, and your eyes are going to roll so hard you might go blind. Be prepared with a counter. And remember, memes don't work face to face. That's not a shot, I use memes, too. But they don't work in conversation. 

Battle stations, people. 2018 is important. If you want anything done, you need to replace the bad apples and fight for those spots in government. Don't just sit it out. Work to get better candidates into office. We don't need any more "the Constitution is a living document, and more government is always the answer" types in office. We can't afford it. 

This study is kind of old news now, but I think the topic is forever relevant. The study was performed in 2016 with the assistance of the local police in Waterloo, Iowa. A bunch of kids were put in a room alone with toys on a sofa, and they tucked a gun into the sofa cushions to see how the kids would react.

All but two of the kids played with the gun - which was a real gun, but was rendered inoperable for the experiment - by waving it around, running with it, pointing it at each other, and pulling the trigger. Two of the kids never touched the gun. The difference? The two kids who didn't touch the gun lived in homes with guns and had been taught gun safety. 

Parents want to believe that, in a situation where a child walks up on a poorly stored and random gun (think crime ditch), the kid won't pick the gun up. But the reality is, if a kid doesn't know what it is, they aren't going to teach themselves. Kids don't know guns are dangerous randomly, and just like you have to teach them to not run out in the street so they don't get hit by a car, you need to teach them not to touch guns, either. A kid who doesn't understand the danger is going to be curious. They see them on TV and in movies. Video games, especially since parents apparently don't police the games they let young kids play. How do they know if you don't teach them?

I remember a customer coming to me to purchase a firearm one day when I was working in the gun store. It was his first gun, and he wanted it for home defense since there had been some violent home invasions in his neighborhood that year. He wasn't the ideal customer, and he was not at all receptive to anything I was asking or instructing. Basically, he was one of the "how hard can it be" customers. He didn't want to have to clean the gun, he didn't want to do any maintenance, he didn't want to test it out on the range. Now began the slow process of talking him out of the gun. That sounds counter productive, and might shock some, but when we had customers like this, we normally tried to talk them out of a purchase because they were dangerous to themselves and others. And we tried to find any good reason to stop the sale. 

The guy mentioned he had kids. As was company policy, I explained proper storage procedures and information on teaching his kids gun safety. He was beside himself. His statement: "My kids aren't going to know this is in the house."

He planned to store the gun in a drawer and not tell the kids it was there. He was completely against teaching them any type of gun safety, continuing to reiterate that they were not going to shoot the gun and he wasn't going to tell them he had it. The kids were both under the age of ten. At this point, I told him the story of when I was the same age as his oldest and was excited for Christmas. My parents were outside decorating the house, and I began the hunt for Christmas presents because I just had to know what I was getting, I couldn't wait any longer. I did this for years. I would find any alone time I could and tear around the house hunting down my presents, and I usually found them. I went through any storage we had; closets, the attic, the basement, drawers. Anywhere presents could be stashed. 

His response? "My kids don't do that." I smiled and said someone had told my mom they caught their kid doing it about two years ago, and my mom told them I had never done it, either. 

The guy came back two weeks later with his two kids to run them through a safety course. And he tried again to purchase the gun after that, at which point he took home a nice revolver.

You don't know what your kids' friends parents have. You don't know if they are going to be playing outside and find a ditched gun (I hate to admit it, but we used to find them occasionally when I was growing up, and they were usually at the county park). You don't want to think that a situation could come up where your kid is face to face with a gun and a choice, or that your kids' friend might pick up a gun and start playing with it, barrel towards your child. 

And I speak from experience. I didn't grow up with guns. My dad had guns when he was a young man, but when my mom got pregnant, she made him get rid of the two rifles he owned. At that point, my father also became very anti-gun. I grew up in a fairly liberal household (dad was a Reagan conservative for most of my life [a Bernie voter by the time he died] but didn't talk politics). My gun safety lesson was that if I saw anyone with a gun, they were either a criminal or a cop. There was no in between. And I spent a good portion of my life thinking citizens weren't allowed to have guns. When I got older and realized hunters existed, I thought they bought their guns out of the trunk of a car, like the bad guys did. I had no idea gun stores were a thing. You laugh, but I honestly didn't. I was 21 years old when I discovered gun stores existed, and three years later I took a job at the first gun store I ever saw. 

I was lucky. There was never an issue with us. When I got older, I was astounded to find out how many of my friends' parents actually owned guns. Yes, in New Jersey even. My best friend from high school, her dad had a fairly stout collection. I never knew. Luckily, their parents actually stored their guns away because of their kids, and their kids did know gun safety. But a lot of other kids aren't so lucky. From people who leave their guns where ever, to ditched guns, to kids knowing the combo to the safe without the parents knowing, kids get their hands on guns all the time, and there are accidents. There would be a lot less if we educated our kids. 

Education is the key. Not banning. It's another aspect of personal responsibility. Owning guns means you take on responsibility. I have kids in my house all the time, from neighbors to kids of my friends. Because of that, I have taken the utmost care in storing my guns. Safes. Locked rooms. Areas of the house that are completely off limits. And watching the kids instead of letting them run all over unsupervised. I understand kids get into things. And I understood what I was taking on when I brought home my first gun. My neighbors have deployed me as the safety teacher, too. Two of the neighborhood kids loved their toy guns, and I discovered a few years ago that their parents had told them I owned real ones, in hopes that the kids would ask me about them and I'd teach them. Damn if that didn't work. They did ask, and I did teach. Those kids have still never seen a single gun that I own. 

Accidents happen. But at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own kids and your guns. Teach your kids. If you don't know enough, get them into a class, they are available. The NRA is really good at that. Most gun shops will help you with literature and other resources to teach your kids. Don't be embarrassed; go into your local gun shop and ask for those resources, watch how excited the staff gets to help you with that. 

Teach your kids. Know their friends and their parents. Don't hide guns from your kids. You don't have to take them shooting, but you need to know that they know how to react to a gun if they see one. It's your responsibility. 

This is an interesting story, but maybe not for the reason you think.

A story out of Philadelphia is gaining attention nation wide due to the ridiculous nature of the law they are attempting to push through. The bill was put forward by Councilwoman Cindy Bass and states:

For those who never lived in an area like this, let me explain. There are businesses that operate in "bad neighborhoods" that will erect a barrier between the staff and the customers that is usually made of bullet resistant Plexiglas. It is usually found in convenience stores - which can sell food over the counter, such as hot dogs, hamburgers, soft pretzels, deli sandwiches, etc. - but can be found in any number of businesses including hotels, banks, bars, etc. Normally, if you are traveling through someplace and stop at a convenience store and see this, it is a good sign not spend a prolonged amount of time in that neighborhood. 

Now, from what I found about this story, the bill is unpopular. I have spent - and I'm not kidding here - three days researching this damn story and even got one of my friends involved. Why? Well, because the story I have seen coming across my news feed isn't the story I saw a few days ago.

See, this story originally graced my RSS feed a few days ago, and I thought I had shared it out on Twitter but apparently didn't. It didn't, at the time, require much from me other than to pass it along for being yet another crazy act from government that I thought people should know about. The problem is... when I saw the story again, there was a completely different reasoning for it, and I am convinced there was another woman involved... a white, female Republican. Instead, I have a black, female Democrat. I was starting to think I'd finally lost my mind. And such an odd bit of news to lose my mind on, too!

Hence the three days spent trying to refind that article. 

I never did find my white female Republican again, but I found the original reasoning. So let's discuss. 

The articles making their way around the internet now are claiming the Plexiglas barrier is racist. Yeah. What isn't, right? But that's what caught my attention... because it was a major shift from what I had originally read. Here's a clip from the latest iteration of this:

Basically, they are trying to tell us that it is a major indignity for these people to order food and all through a barrier like this, because it is a working class or poverty stricken area, and the glass is racist because the areas seem to be predominantly African-American. 

But wait, there's more. 

The original story didn't seem to care about racism or indignity. 

In these stories, the one store owner claims this is targeting Korean Americans, since the bill doesn't target all businesses, just ones like his that are apparently largely owned by Korean Americans. So I guess we're battling a racism claim with a racism claim. 

The bottom line is, the bill was proposed to combat these small stores that sell alcohol. The law requires places selling malt liquor and beer to have tables and chairs to seat at least 30 and to regularly sell food. They apparently want bathrooms for the customers as well. Basically... it should only be sold for in house consumption in a restaurant. 

Now, I'm not sure if these places are selling shots over the counter or are pouring beer into glasses for customers, or if the customers are grabbing 40s of Colt 45 out of the coolers and drinking them in front of the place or what (I've never personally witnessed alcohol being sold for in store consumption in these places, but I can't say for sure if they do or do not). They are making it sound like the places are selling glasses of beer and shots, but during my time living in areas like this, they were sitting out front with the Colt 45. You would literally roll up to one of these places and there would be three dudes with a 40 in a brown paper bag so you couldn't identify exactly what they were drinking, sitting on the curb watching people go by. These folks would hang out in the parking lots of these establishments, coming and going from the store regularly. Fights would break out, there would be lots of drunken cat calling, they'd approach random people asking for money, stuff like that. These places did have a lot of crime around them, because people just sat there getting drunk and harassing people. Fights, shootings, stabbings, all common stuff for these places. 

What the bill is actually trying to do is scare these places out of business, and I wanted that original article because they openly admitted that in that article. People are upset about the bill because, obviously, the store owners don't want to lose their businesses. But the people who don't own them are angry because police response times around those establishments are notoriously bad (and I'm not blaming the cops, because I wouldn't want to drive up in that crap, either!). People want these neighborhoods cleaned up, and they want this kind of thing stopped, but they don't want the store owners getting killed or having to close up shop all together out of fear. They see this bill sort of like how we see gun control - they are punishing the business owners instead of the criminals. They're going after the good guy instead of the bad guy, because it is easier. There isn't much one store owner can do to stop these groups of people from hanging out in the parking lot. It's one against many. And when they do try to cut them off from a sale, that plexiglas is stopping the bad guy from coming over the counter at them, something they actually do in places that don't have it. All they can do is stop selling alcohol, and again, the people who aren't doing this get punished. 

Now, to be clear. I'm not defending the stores, either. I can guarantee they are breaking laws. It was one of these stores that I got my cigarettes from when I was 12 years old, and the lady would put the packs in the bag and tell me to tell a cop they were candy if I was approached. I'm not even kidding. So they aren't innocent in this. But I don't think the removal of the glass is the way to go. Some shops will close, but not all. And that issue will remain unless some real hard work is done by the police and the community itself to clean it up. 

So why the big deal about the story change?

Well, for all the reasons I stated above, the bill is unpopular. Especially when the people know the end goal is to close up these stores. So in order to get the people behind them, they changed it to a story of how benevolent they are, trying to squash the indignity of being treated like animals by racist shop owners. And they did such a good job that I had to research an archive website to find the news broadcast above and the articles I could find with the original reasoning. All of a sudden, these politicians aren't trying to close the shops... they are fighting for social justice! You, the little guy, are being treated like animals because this racist shop owner thinks every single one of you wants to kill him because you are poor and African-American and that's what you do! Don't you see how racist they are?! Get behind us, and we'll stop the racism and indignity!

Attempting to cut the criminal hang outs and busting store owners who are breaking the law (which isn't all of them, to be fair) was perfectly fine reasoning. 

You're being played. Again. Stop getting fooled by this crap. 

Video now available in the Videos section!
​
By now, you probably are aware that the US Supreme Court is currently hearing the "gay wedding cake" case.

It started when Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, was approached by David Mullins and Charlie Craig about baking a cake for their wedding reception. Mr. Phillips turned them down, sighting a religious objection to sending a pro-gay message with the making of the cake. Feeling humiliated, Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig filed a complaint with Colorado's civil rights commission.
​
The basic arguments: Mr. Phillips believes the state should not be allowed to force him to violate his religious beliefs against same sex marriage by stating he must bake a cake for same sex weddings. Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig are claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And many are taking this case to be an expansion on the SCOTUS ruling in favor of same sex marriage in 2015. It could be classified as a battle between freedom of religion and discrimination.
While we wait on the case to play out before SCOTUS, I wanted to drop some thoughts on the whole thing. 

I, personally, believe that a business should be allowed to decide who they want to do business with, just as the customer can choose who they want to do business with. And before someone loses their mind, think it out for a moment.

Let's take any craft you could enjoy. It could be cake making, wood working, painting, sculpture, crafting. Whatever you enjoy. If you do create, you most likely understand what goes into creating these items. You know how you feel about each creation and the people you are creating them for. And you know what you yourself do to make sure your customer or recipient will be in love with the item. Because of the issue at hand, we'll say you are cake maker.

A couple comes in wanting a cake for their wedding. Now, of course, they are going to be purchasing this cake from you. But there is more involved here than the basic transaction taking place of I give you money, you give me huge cake. As a cake maker, your creations are your artwork. And as someone who works with the general public, you feel something for your customers. Folks can say they don't, but they do. These are your people. You want to create something memorable for them. You want their wedding to be perfect, and you want that cake to stand out and wow them and their guests, not just because it makes you look good, but because you actually care about your customers and their wedding.
​
Because of this, that wedding cake is going to take a lot of work. You are going to be careful with each and every detail, because each flower and each ribbon and each design needs to be the best you have ever made, the closest thing to perfection you can muster. A lot of love and care goes into that, even if your customer isn't a personal friend. 

Now, let's say you really don't agree with gay marriage. A gay couple comes into your shop and wants to order a cake. You really don't want to make the cake, because you don't agree with their relationship for whatever reason. But you have been told by the government that you can't turn them away. You can't tell them you don't agree with their relationship. So you make the cake. The entire time, you are unhappy about it. It is no longer a work of art, it is just a cake you have to make. The cake is probably not going to be the image of perfection. It will probably look great and taste great and your customer may be happy with it. But it will most likely be a "cookie cutter" cake without any extra effort and without the real feeling of love you had in the first cake. You may not feel like really wowing anyone, and so nothing extra is added, no special touches or flair. The cake this couple gets ends up being acceptable, but not what you would normally do. And you may feel detached from the cake.

Is that fair to the couple? The cake they are getting for their wedding isn't going to be to the standard they should be getting. They may or may not notice, because at the end of the day, the baker still needs to look good for themselves and their business. But the couple isn't going to get anything special for their cake, it will just be... a basic wedding cake that looks exactly like it should, maybe not the best effort put into every detail, maybe nothing to really remember. It was there, and that was about it.

If the person making the cake for my wedding wasn't going to be into it with their whole heart and soul, I'd want to know. Because that could give me the option to go to the next baker who would put their entire heart and soul in it, and instead of getting a wedding cake, I got something I'd never forget. I'd get the work of art made with love that I'd want at my wedding, a cake I would still remember clearly on our 50th anniversary.

So while I don't like the idea of discriminating against the couple, I do believe that they should know up front that this baker isn't going to be as into it as they should be. Because once your wedding day rolls around, it's too late to discover your baker didn't have his heart in it. You're stuck with whatever he gives you. And he may give you a nice cake. I'm not saying he's going to give you a crappy cake. But you aren't going to get that special cake.

I am also a big supporter of the idea that the market will decide. Businesses should be allowed to discriminate. If you run a business, it should be up to you who you do business with. If you turn down certain groups, and if the community doesn't agree with that, then the community stops buying from you and your business goes under. If they do agree, they give you their business and you thrive. That's how it should work. The government should not be stepping in to tell people, hey, you have to cater to everyone no matter what. Nobody wins there. The business doesn't win because they either close up shop to avoid it or their work suffers and they never grow, and the customer doesn't win because they don't get the best the business has to offer.
​
I have never been shy about the fact that I don't agree with the government telling people who they can and cannot marry, but if they are going to, then same sex couples should be permitted. So I feel for this couple. But because I feel for this couple, I hope the baker wins. The couple should know, like any other couple, if a business doesn't want to work with them, because they should be able to walk out of that business and find someone who does. 

Video now available in the Videos section!

We're going to play a little game! We're going to play "is Walmart selling Antifa fan gear like Breitbart says they are?" Hang in there with me now. 

OK, so the fast answer is yes, they are. You can apparently buy Antifa gear at the Walmart website, which Breitbart provided a link to. You can check that out here. So if I have a link to their website with the shirt for sale, why am I playing this game and printing this article? Because it's homework time. 

​Let's take a look at the page.

This is the page that opens. And according to Breitbart, there are 13 different styles you can get, but this was the link they offered. Now, let's take a closer look. See under the price of the shirt? What does that say?

Walmart has a "marketplace" similar to what Amazon has. As most of you know, when you shop at Amazon, you have to be mindful of who you are actually buying from. The item you are trying to buy might be shipped by Amazon but sold by another dealer, sold by and shipped from Amazon, or sold by and shipped from another dealer but sold through the Amazon website. I have sold books through Amazon, and at the time at least, they didn't seem to care what I was selling or to who. I'm sure if I was trying to sell a gun or something they would have stepped in. But I'm not sure about shirt designs. 

In this case, you will see the shirt is sold by and shipped by a company called Tee Bangers, and they are selling it through the Walmart website. So... technically no, Walmart isn't selling these shirts. Tee Bangers is. Now, in this case, Walmart may have not caught it yet, or they may have a policy about items sold by other companies through their site that this does not violate. That is highly likely. They may allow it as long as no foul language or threats are portrayed in the design. 

I decided to hit the Walmart website and see if I could find this and the other 12 designs for more information. The below video is a screen capture of my time at the Walmart website. As you will see, I searched for Antifa in all catagories, then just in the clothing department. When that turned up nothing, I searched for the company, Tee Bangers. What I found was a collection of political and non-political tee shirts. Yes, I found a lot of pro-Trump shirts. I also found shirts for Castro. I didn't find Antifa shirts. As a matter of fact, I never found them. 

Now, for full disclosure, the search gave me 25+ pages of results, and I didn't go through all 25 pages (and you wouldn't have watched if I did). But I did go several pages in. Feel free to recreate the search if you want to see what is in the other 20 or so pages. They will probably eventually show up. Maybe. The above shirt is actually sold out or not available. So it may not show anymore. And they didn't show up when I directly searched Antifa or Tee Bangers Antifa. 

Basically, you aren't going to walk into Walmart and find these on the racks. And they aren't actually being sold by Walmart. They are being sold by a third party through the site, and Walmart may not even be aware they are there. As for the third party company, it appears their items for sale are not explicitly anti-Trump or anti-Conservative since they have a variety of Trump shirts. They are, basically, going to make and sell what people want to buy, and there it is. Their opinions on politics are not clear by the items they sell. 

In this case, I wouldn't hold a grudge against either Walmart or Tee Bangers. 

Edit: I had someone make a comment that none of this matters, they shouldn't be selling it. And while I greatly dislike Antifa and those who commit violence in the name of forcing people into their views, I have to disagree. "I don't like it" isn't an excuse. The company has a right to make and sell the shirts. You don't have to buy them. You can boycott Walmart if you want, although I doubt it will do much good. You'd be forcing the end of sales of shirts you do like, too. Bottom line... "I don't like it, so it shouldn't exist" isn't a reason to do away with the shirts. That's the excuse the left uses for silencing conservative speakers and shutting down any conservative thought online. I am a free speech absolutist. That means speech I don't like is also OK. My aim is to not silence anyone while trying to give a voice to my side. I don't like the shirts. I won't buy the shirts. But I won't say they should be stopped from selling them, either. And boycotting is great and all, but we're running out of places to shop. Instead of shutting down the speech of others, combat it with your own. Don't like the shirts? Make a bunch of your own and sell them in the Walmart marketplace. You'll anger someone else, but you have the right to do it. So do it. Speak, don't silence.