Take a moment to watch this very short video from Facebook. It was originally posted by a young lady named Coco Grissett. Watch closely and then let's discuss.

​Warning: short fight video.

There is a lot happening here for such a short video. The obvious, of course, is that there is an older gentleman being overpowered by two younger gentlemen. They are going for his head and neck and he is outnumbered by men, age, and strength. We don't know what lead up to this fight, of course, because cell phones only come out once the violence starts. 

The less obvious that we're seeing is that no one is bothering to help stop the fight, choosing instead to film, of course. That alone is the definition of our current society. Don't help, film. You might go viral! Right at the end, as the guy is being put into a corner and losing his chance to escape, the older man pulls a concealed gun and the two younger men quickly retreat from the fight. No shots are fired, they leave quickly without any more beef. The older guy did everything right under the law. He didn't pull the gun until his escape route and odds of getting away were eradicated. I have no idea what state this is in, but he may have been legally obligated to do that. If not, he may have thought he could still physically get the upper hand if he tried. He did not pursue them, and he did not fire shots at fleeing attackers (if he had, he'd be in jail, because when they flee your life is no longer in danger. You pull the gun to stop the threat, and the bulk of the time, just pulling it out stops the threat and shots aren't needed). 

Now, the stunner to me. The reaction of the bystanders. As I said, no one opted to help in this situation. Everyone was content to watch these two younger guys beat the tar out of this older guy and there were zero concerns for the safety of the older guy. But as soon as he pulled the gun to stop the attack and prevent grave bodily harm or death at the hands of these two young men, everyone watching started screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" 

Also as stated, we don't know what happened before someone decided to "World Star" this event with their cell phone. Either way, the crowd's reaction was horrible. Did the two men attack this guy unprovoked? Then why did no one stop the attack, or at least try, before it got to gun time? Did the older guy do something to the young men? Make a racist comment? Try to steal a wallet from one of them? Fondle one of their girlfriends/wives? If so, why did no one come out to stop the fight or help the two younger guys and detain the older guy for police? Why do we not hear someone in the background talking to 911? 

This is where we are in 2019. We see something like this and no one helps. No one calls 911. No one even gives a full story of how it started when posting a video! 

More upsetting, everyone is fine with the physical violence, even if it means one person could be killed... until the person losing gets the upper hand. If he'd fired on these guys this would have been a news story. Old white man shoots unarmed black men. Now, if he'd shot them while fleeing, I'd fully support the condemnation of the older man. You don't shoot fleeing attackers. You've stopped the threat, don't continue needlessly. But in 2019 we're expected to allow others to kill us instead of using a gun to defend our own lives. Especially if the person killing you is a minority. No one wants to help stop the violence and make a wrong right, but they will stand on the news and cry about the racist old white man who didn't let the two younger guys kill him in the name of political correctness. 

What would have been the perfect outcome here? If someone helped. If you step in, then all ends well. The two younger guys go home alive and without a prison sentence and there's one less story of unarmed black men being killed. The older white guy goes home alive and without being decried as a racist all over national TV for deciding not to die today. It might mean your video doesn't go viral. But at some point we need to put the phones down and start helping again. And at some point we need to reach a point of actual equality. The race of the men is this clip shouldn't matter. At all. If the two younger men were wrong, they were wrong. If the older man was wrong, he was wrong. You don't become less wrong because of the color of your skin. And your right to defend your own life and health shouldn't depend on the color of your attacker's skin. We need to be more outraged over violence. Being passive while a man gets beaten about the head and into a cornered wall by two other men should be just as shocking as the man pulling out the gun. But no one cares if you're being beaten to death. We'll make excuses for that. 

You want equality? Stop caring about their races. Start caring about harmony. Stop recording and start helping. Help whoever was actually in the right here. Defend whoever was right regardless of their race or the race of whoever was wrong. If it helps, that video would also go viral. 

There is so much to unpack here. Basically, what the court says is that these families can sue Remington and it isn't a violation of PLCAA because Remington marketed the guns to civilians for criminal use, a violation of CUTPA. Personally, I want to hear the argument for this when it comes up in court, because I missed the advertising materials being sent out by Remington about how to kill kids with their rifles. 

Obviously, being allowed to sue doesn't guarantee a win. That has to be said. But we need to look at the really big picture here. 

A lot of folks are using the comparison that if this is allowed you should be allowed to sue car manufacturers if you get hit by a drunk driver, and people come out telling us they're two completely different items and shouldn't be compared. Take this exchange from Instagram:

Here's the problem with this entire argument and what everyone misses. It isn't about comparing guns to cars. I could write an entire article about how the argument about guns vs. cars is mute because of people and cars, but we're not going to do that today. 

Today we're going to talk about how a win against Remington would clear the path for you to sue car manufacturers over drunk drivers. No matter how you view the cars vs. guns debate. 

Our court system is run off of case law, which is basically a lawyer finds a bunch of cases similar to the one he is arguing to figure out if the case is winnable and to argue it in court. I just did this in a class where I argued an appeal for a man convicted of running a chop shop by arguing illegal search and seizure based off of case law of search and seizure cases for illegal marijuana farms. What the people in the cases were convicted of was completely different from what the person I was arguing for was convicted of. But the case law was relevant. 

If these families win against Remington, a crafty lawyer could use that case to argue other lawsuits, and they don't have to be about guns. Meaning...

Let's say your kid is driving home from college one night and is hit and killed by a drunk driver. You, as a grieving parent, decide you want justice, and the charges against the person who killed your kid just aren't enough. You want those deep pockets. So you hire a lawyer who stumbles upon this case in his research. The families accused Remington of marketing their product to the civilian population for criminal purpose, removing protections against that type of lawsuit. 

The guy who killed your kid was driving a privately owned pickup truck. The lawyer could sue the manufacturer for marketing that truck - which was designed as a work vehicle, not a personal mode of transportation - to the civilian population to drive themselves home from bars while drunk. 

The lawyer could sue the manufacturer of the alcohol he was drinking for marketing their product to be consumed for the purpose of getting intoxicated at an establishment other than your home, thus marketing it for criminal purposes when they "encouraged" the driver to drive drunk. 

And the lawyer could sue the bar itself for marketing themselves as an establishment outside the home where you could get drunk, thus encouraging the driver to drive drunk, a violation of the law.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that all is. It doesn't matter if you don't think the two cases have anything to do with each other. It doesn't matter if you think the lawyer couldn't win with this as case law.

A good lawyer could work with it. And they will try. If one gets a win off of it, more case law has been established, thus almost guaranteeing a win for future cases like this. And more lawsuits will follow. Bars. Car manufacturers. Alcoholic beverage makers. And it will go beyond that. Drug companies. Cities. Counties. Anything would become fair game. 

And we have an influx of what would be frivolous lawsuits... but no longer are because of established case law. That's exactly how our court system works. 

So this case has a much larger possible impact than just second amendment issues. This could shake up the court system pretty hard. It could impact our economy as well. I highly suggest following this one as closely as possible, because the impact could be massive. 

Oh, my God, you guys. This article popped up today from the NRA, and just... wow. I get the message behind it, I do. But I want to tweak the points a little, subtract and add if you will. 

It's all about the worst advice given to women in a gun store, and I have a very unique take on this issue. As many of you know, I am a woman. I am not a small, dainty woman. I'm close to 6' tall with a hand that can easily fit around the grip of a Glock 21 without an issue and a shoulder that can handle more recoil than most are willing to try. Still, I've heard some weird things in the gun store, both as a customer and as a sales person. 

My first time in a gun store was when I was 23 years old. I am originally from NJ, I didn't know people actually bought guns in stores, I thought everyone bought them out of the trunks of cars. That's not humor, I'm serious. But I'd taken a job with an armored car company and my first time handling a gun - let alone shooting one - was when I qualified for the state license to carry the gun on the job. How I managed to get the required 80% accuracy - I actually got 93% accuracy for day and 88% for night - is beyond me. 

​But, being unfamiliar with guns beyond this, I thought it best to get familiar with the piece of trash they gave us to carry. Seriously, at one point it had been a Ruger GP100, but it was refurbished, and badly. Some co-workers directed me to a gun store - ironically, three years later I was working for the same store. 

For those who know gun shops, it was typical for a gun shop of it's nature. It was the "aimed at cops, but we love everyone" type of store, not the friendly "sit in a chair and chat, we don't even care if you buy anything" type of store. They immediately knew I was out of my element, and as soon as I spoke they knew why (my accent isn't thick, but it's noticeable). But apparently my experience as a woman in a gun shop was not typical, according to this article. See... they didn't treat me differently from the men there. There wasn't a single woman working there, and none were customers that day, either. But I was treated like any new shooter, and there was nothing odd said to me. 

In this article, the woman claims these are the 3 pieces of "advice" she's heard in a store. 

• “What do you want a gun for? Let your man defend you.”
• The second most common piece of bad advice I’ve gotten in gun stores is the “cute gun.”
• The most common piece of bad advice given to women in gun stores, and it’s one often given with the best of intentions: The lightweight .38 Special or .357 Magnum revolver.

​I have never had anyone in a gun store suggest I let my man defend me. Let's just get that out of the way. The closest I ever came to something like this was while I was working in this gun store, and someone noticed the gun I was carrying on my hip and made the comment, "Real women don't carry guns." It was a woman who said it, and me and everyone else in the store laughed for a solid five minutes after she said it. 

​At no time was I ever directed towards a cute gun. Now, this may be because I made it clear that I was working for an armored car company when I walked in with that piece of crap that day. It might also be because I'm not dainty with 6" long finger nails and hair that never seems to want to stay off my face. I rented a gun that day, too, for the experience, and took what was suggested. They handed me a Springfield Armory 1911 in 45 ACP and I fell in love with it (when the range closed and they sold the rental guns, I actually bought it, and it's still one of the best guns in my collection. Thanks to Springfield Armory for the loving light refurb they did). Actually, at one point, as a joke I carried a pink revolver while working in the gun store, and everyone who came in and saw it was shocked I was touching that thing.

The tiny revolver... yep! I have had that suggestion. And it's not always a bad suggestion. I carry one every single day of my life and wouldn't give it up for anything. 

​The weird advice was usually stuff I overheard, and it was given to women who came in with their men. I had a woman come in wanting a gun for concealed carry. She'd done her research and tested some, and she knew what she wanted. She wanted a small revolver. But she made the mistake of bringing her tactical trunk monkey of a boyfriend with her, and he annoyed her until she left with a Glock 26 that she wasn't at all happy with, but she wanted him to shut up. That was bad advice. Nothing against the Glock 26, it's a great gun. But it wasn't the one she was comfortable with. She won't carry it, she won't shoot it, and it will collect dust in a drawer because it makes her uncomfortable. The best gun for you is the one you feel the most comfortable with. 

Don't buy a revolver, they're out dated and useless. Uh, no. They are constantly innovating with the revolver. It's still a choice weapon for many, including me. I own four revolvers and love all of them. As I stated, I usually have one on me. I love my semi-autos, too. But in a moment of need I want a revolver because it won't jam. Or my Ruger 1911 because it has been an extension of my arm (and has already saved my life once). 

Don't buy a 22LR, they'll just piss off an attacker. Wrong. No, it isn't an optimal defense gun. But I can rationalize anything, so hear me out. The 22LR is a great choice for someone who can't handle anything else. It's better than nothing. What if the person has a handicap and really can't control anything bigger? With a bigger gun they might get one shot off, but that's it. I'd rather that person had a 22LR they could empty than a bigger gun they only get one shot with. Here's a shocker. You know those NAA Mini Revolvers everyone laughs at? I used to sell the tar out of those things. Seriously, we couldn't keep them in once I gave the proper scenario. I own one, it is a terrible gun for self defense. It's hard to load, it sucks trying to shoot it, etc. But it, too, has a purpose. I used to call them kidney poppers. The customers always got their interest peeked when I called them this, and then I gave them this scenario. "Imagine you are walking down the street one day and a guy comes out of an alley and grabs you from behind. He's got his hand over your mouth and is trying to drag you down the alley he just came out of. You manage to get your hand in your pocket and grab your mini revolver. You pull it out, cock it, and twist your arm around. The barrel is now against his side, right about kidney height. You pull the trigger. You probably won't kill him, but that kidney is done for, and he's now more concerned about his kidney than whatever he was about to do to you." 

Just stick the gun in your purse. I hate this. I really do. Purse carry is a terrible way to carry for so many reasons. First of all, what is the biggest crime committed against women? Purse snatching. So now the guy may have thrown you to the ground and you are defenseless. He's also got your drivers license with your address on it, and a gun. Another reason it is bad is because women carry the entire world in their purse. So when someone is running at you with a knife, you now have to fish through 10 lbs. of napkins and tissues, six chapsticks, four hand lotions, eight bottles of medication, 150 lbs. of shop receipts, a pound of hard candy, two pairs of sunglasses, an umbrella, the missing link, fifteen pairs of shoes, the one ring, another purse, an ex-boyfriend who went missing two years ago, and God knows what else just to reach the gun that has worked it's way to the very bottom of the sack you call a purse. I get it. Clothing designers have decided women don't need pockets, so especially in dress pants you'd wear to work there is either no pocket or the pocket is so small even the mini revolver won't fit in there. We also apparently don't need more than three belt loops on our pants. And, of course, some of you paint your clothes on. What is a girl to do? Well, if it has to go in the purse, get a special concealed carry purse. The gun has it's own pocket on the back of the bag and the bag usually sits high up in your arm pit. It gives you a better shot at actually getting the gun out in a reasonable amount of time. Or learn to sew. Add your own belt loops and extend your own pockets. It's a pain in the butt, but it can be done. 

Get this one, you'll never have to clean it. Wrong. If you want a gun you don't have to clean or practice with, just get a dog. And yes, I told a woman this once because she was insistent on a gun she didn't have to practice with or clean. If keeping the gun in working order and getting at least somewhat proficient with it so you don't hurt yourself or shoot like a moron in a moment of need and kill a neighbor, you don't need a gun. There are knives, tasers, stun guns (yes, they are different things), bats, hammers, dogs, etc. Don't buy a gun if you don't want to take care of it. It's not that hard to get the dust out and relube once in a while. It's also not hard to go to the range once or twice a year. 

There's more, but I could write a book. Really, it's 2019. Of course, as a woman, you'll get weird comments here and there. But the fact of the matter is that women are a growing demographic in the shooting sports. Running into bizarre comments like the writer of the above article told us about is rare. Most gun store personnel will listen to you. If you're trying to take a Desert Eagle out as your first ever shooting experience, they may stop you. They may still suggest a small revolver for carry purposes. They might mention the pink guns because, contrary to what store owners and gun manufacturers believe, the pink guns don't sell well and the sales people just want to sell them off. And the men aren't going to carry them. And we're sick of looking at them. But right now, women have no reason to feel uncomfortable in the gun store or at the range. There will be other women there. We're moving right on up and taking our safety into our own hands, so it isn't uncommon anymore. You can find women's shooting leagues. You'll always find male sales people who will sell you whatever you want. You'll even find female sales people if you feel better getting advice from them. The shooting sports are ever evolving and they've evolved beyond this woman's experience. Go into the gun store. Trust me. You won't be disappointed.  

This is going to be a new series here since memes seem to be such a huge part of culture these days. You aren't always going to like what I have to say! This is me keeping myself and you humble and non-hypocritical. Some will be explanations of memes some may not understand. Some will be a reality check. Etc. You'll see what comes as the memes come in. If you'd like to see one included in this series, feel free to pass it on. 

So, let's start with one I posted for laughs on Instagram and started a huge and unexpected manure storm with.

Let me just say two things. 1. If you aren't 100% sure of what a meme means, don't try to explain to others 2. If you don't get the joke, I'm not going to explain it... most of the time. It loses the humor if I have to explain it, and frankly... if you don't get it, it wasn't meant for you. 

The crap storm came when someone decided they got it, explained it to others, and then got mad when he found out he was completely wrong. Because he was being a turd from the get go, I absolutely refused to explain it to him and he just got angrier and angrier until he finally told me that obviously no one else got it, either, since he had to "explain" it to two other people. I ended the conversation by pointing out that, at that moment, close to 400 people had gotten the joke. 

I suspect most of you get the joke. If you've spent any amount of time in a gun store or at gun shows, you have heard some variation of this joke. Basically, "Oh, I don't own any guns. I lost them all in a horrible boating accident." That's it. It's a joke based on the idea that second amendment supporters aren't going to register or turn in their weapons, choosing to instead claim their firearms vanished in a pretty much unproveable manner. They can't prove you didn't and you can't prove you did. It's not serious at all, it is just a light hearted inside joke that you only get if you are part of the gun scene and are completely outraged by if you aren't. Having worked in a gun store for seven years, I've heard tons of variants on this joke. 

Here's one you're not going to like! This meme rubs me the wrong way. Why? Obama. 

How many people posting this meme were disrespectful to Obama? No, I didn't like him, either. But the same people claiming this is treason when done to Trump did it to Obama. And they didn't "respect the office of the president" when he was in office. Granted, the same people who were screaming you should "respect the office of the president" under Obama are currently not doing so with Trump, but I digress. 

I remember the conservatives claiming he wasn't their president. I remember the name calling and calls to ignore laws they didn't like and all of that. The left does some pretty strange stuff when it comes to Trump. But the right had some Obama Derangement Syndrome, too. 

Bumper stickers with Obama's face on them saying things like, "Does this ass make my truck look big?" "Nope" instead of "Hope." And the birth certificate. All the way up until Trump's inauguration we heard about the birth certificate. And at least three different names Obama apparently had gone by, complete with IDs listed as "proof" that no one wanted to admit were really bad photoshop jobs. There's one still going around about Michelle Obama claiming her name was originally Michael with a short haired photo of her, and the photoshop job is so bad it is actually laughable. But people are passing it around like it's real! 

And yes, I heard people say flat out that they hoped Obama failed. Even Rush Limbaugh said it on his show. I didn't hope Obama failed. Why? Because if the president fails, the country fails, and I don't dislike any president enough to want to watch the country fall down around our ears just for the pleasure of watching that person fail. Blindly following, of course, is no better. 

The bottom line is this. Mocking the president is not treason. Treason is a serious allegation. And it has lost all meaning in the last 15 to 20 years. Conspiracy theories are not treason, either. Both sides have them. Russia collusion... they are sure it happened and it will be proven any day now. But the right had the birth certificate... which they were sure was real and would be proven any day now. Both sides think their conspiracy theory will lead to the removal of the president they don't like. 

​Every president since Washington had nay sayers, conspiracy theories, snowflakes, haters, etc. It's a great way to relieve stress when someone is in office that you don't like, doing things that you don't like. But it's not treason. Aside from that, all of these presidents - including Obama and Trump - had die hards that were convinced they could do no wrong and lashed out at anyone who had anything negative at all to say about their president. I know for certain that some of those people haven't made it this far. They've already gotten angry that I've said something that was not in high praise of Trump and have vowed to never return here. Sorry. I'm not a blind follower. I voted for Trump. He's done some good, he's done some bad. Just like Obama. Patriotism is being able to see that. 

This one started flying around when it was decided that the officer that cowered outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas during the shooting didn't have the responsibility to protect the kids. 

The ruling was based on case law, and in this case, they based it off of the Supreme Court ruling that the police do not have the responsibility to protect the citizens. There's been a lot of debate since this officer was a school resource officer and he was hired to do just that. But... he wasn't. He should have tried. But he wasn't required to, and can't be held liable for not doing so. 

There's arguments all around, but logic comes into play in this case and the Supreme Court ruling. If these cases were not found this way, any time a person was robbed, raped, murdered, assaulted, etc., the victim or their family could sue the police for not being there to stop the crime. The cops can't be there if no one calls. But if the SCOTUS had found they did have the responsibility of protecting the citizens, victims would constantly be suing the cops because they were victims, and they'd win, causing our taxes to go sky high because the payouts have to come from somewhere. 

Let's take this school resource officer and break it down. Let's assume he wasn't a coward, and let's assume he was trying to stop the shooter. 

1. Let's say he was at the front entrance, trying to prevent people from coming in. The shooter knows this and comes in through a window or fire door at the other end of the building. He starts shooting. The school resource officer starts running towards the gunfire and arrives, shooting the killer dead. But before he got there, the shooter had already killed the students. If the court ruled he was responsible for their safety, the parents of those students could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

2. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds inside the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately tries to disarm the shooter, but the gun goes off in the scuffle and kills a student. The parents could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

3. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds insides the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately pulls his own pistol and begins shooting, but the killer runs down a side hall. While trying to hit a moving target, the cop shoots through a door and hits the teacher. While the killer is running, he starts randomly firing at all the doors he runs past while being chased, and manages to kill several students and teachers. The parents and families could sue him, the school, and the police department.

I could come up with a ton of scenarios here, but you get the point. The cops and the school resource officer can't be everywhere at once. It is physically impossible for them to protect everyone in every scenario. The ruling in both of these cases was actually necessary to prevent victims and families from suing the police department out of existence and raising taxes to astronomical levels to cover all the payouts. 

Your safety is your responsibility. Which is something those who are pro-second amendment grasp. It's part of the reason we are pro-second amendment. 

Gun control isn't the big story right now, because the media is now telling us to be outraged about Trump's visit to the UK, his meeting with Putin, and the illegal alien issue at the southern border. But truth be told, our favorite laundry detergent eating line readers are still out in the public eye and fighting for every last grasp of attention they can get. Politicians are still whining about how we could have a pure Utopia if we could just ban the rifles that are responsible for about 1% of all gun crime. And the fight isn't going anywhere.

​And we're still not giving an inch. 

But why, you might ask. Well, let's discuss. Let's use an old article to discuss this. This article is from CBS and is from 2014. It is a brief story about a shootout in California that left the suspect dead and an officer injured. 

Why is this four year old article relevant? Because it highlights one of the reasons we aren't willing to give an inch... the fact that when you give an inch they take a mile. If you read all the way through to the bottom, you'll notice this paragraph:

"But Whiskey, they say revolver twice. It was probably a typo!" And I'm sure it would have been corrected at some point in the last four years if it were. I'd also be more inclined to believe that if we hadn't heard about "assault pistols" as well. 

Apparently, if you add "assault" to the front of something it becomes a lot more frightening. So now, instead of just "assault rifles," we have "assault revolvers," "assault pistols," and "assault shotguns." That covers just about everything, right? And if it is an "assault" weapon, you obviously can't use it for defense because the Marines are using it or something! 

It's our old friend the slippery slope. Your scary black rifle has to go because the military uses "assault rifles." But now... all these other "assault" things are weapons of war, too. After all of that is gone, your deer rifle will be a sniper rifle and we'll have to do away with that, too. 

Yeah, I still remember back in the day when having a scope on your rifle was considered unsportsmanlike. Does anyone else remember that? If you hunted with anything other than iron sights, you were cheating. No one needs a rifle with a scope on it. If you were really interested in the sport of hunting, you'd use iron sights. A scope just proves you just want to kill things, because a scope makes it almost impossible to miss. Any rifle with a scope is much more dangerous, and there's something wrong with the person who owns it. 

Remember that paragraph the next time you doubt your deer rifle would ever be called a sniper rifle. It already has been. 

See, here's the thing. We're not stupid. We know you think we are, but we aren't. The goal of the left is to do away with the second amendment and end all private gun ownership. We know that. We also know it can only be achieved in bits and pieces because the American people, in general, don't want an all out gun ban. It's been a big loser for politicians trying to get elected for as long as we can remember. It's why so many post photos of themselves shooting guns. 

And the best way to get people to go along is to condition them. We're not being conditioned anymore. We're tired of the horse manure. 

So I just had someone tell me that my view on gun control would change if someone I knew had been the victim of gun violence. So let's discuss that. Because what the person doesn't know is that I carry a gun because people I love have been the victims of gun crime. 

I want to talk about one specific friend. His name is Jamal. I met Jamal when I was 14 years old, through a mutual friend. We never went to school together until college, but we made it through our teen years together. He used to come over to my house all the time to play guitar, and he was very gifted on the instrument. Jamal was a very close friend. 

The last time I ever saw Jamal is now permanently burned into my mind. I was graduating from college and there was a procession through our small campus to the area where graduation was being held. We walked through a crowd of friends and family, and as I was passing one particular spot, a hand reached out and pulled me out of line. It was Jamal. He had come to campus to watch me graduate, and wanted to take a moment to introduce me to his girlfriend, because with all the craziness - and the fact that I had moved out of state and had only returned for graduation - he wasn't sure he'd get a chance for us to meet again. I could only spend a moment and then had to run to catch up. I didn't realize I'd never see Jamal again. 

Six months later, Jamal stepped off a bus a block away from his home. It was 10:00 at night and he was returning from work. It was a major road in the city with a lot of apartments and heavy foot traffic at all hours of the day and night. He was in front of a blindingly lit car lot. Out of nowhere, a guy walked up to him and put a 22 LR right in the side of his neck. As Jamal lay on the ground, the guy emptied his pockets and made off with $2. 

An hour prior to this, this same man had robbed a woman and her small child in a fast food restaurant. Jamal was his second victim of the night. He wasn't the guy's last victim of the night, though. He was eventually caught. The gun was stolen. He was charged and convicted on a bunch of charges, including murder.

The story doesn't end there. Yes, I blame the person who shot Jamal. But I want to discuss this a little further. 

Go back to the description of the area. It was a heavily traveled, heavily lit area. Cars passing, buses passing, Lots and lots of apartments. He was right at the bus stop when this happened. 

Now, let's discuss the aftermath. Jamal was discovered at 7:30 the next morning by a sales person from the car lot he was in front of. The guy called 911, but Jamal was obviously dead at this point. An autopsy was performed and it was stated that it took several hours for him to bleed out. 

Put the last two paragraphs together in your mind for a moment and think about it. 

1. Someone heard the shot. They had to. 
2. People walked by. People drove by. There's a chance people getting off the bus stepped over him. People may have stood near him waiting to catch the bus. 
3. Someone in one of those apartments most likely saw him lying there in his own blood. 
4. The people on the bus he'd just gotten off most likely saw at least some of the robbery. They most likely heard the shot and saw Jamal fall to the ground. 

No one called 911 until 7:30 the next morning. Jamal laid on that sidewalk for 9.5 hours. He was alive for a good deal of them, I don't know how many, but the autopsy said "several." 

So yes, I blame the guy with the stolen gun who shot my friend. But I also blame all of those people. I won't lie, it's been a long time. It's been about 15 years since the world lost Jamal. And I am still angry. If just one of those people had bothered to call 911, Jamal might still be alive today! His parents wouldn't have lost their only child. His then fiance wouldn't have lost the love of her life. He most likely would have been doing something amazing with his life. He might have a kid or two by now. He would have had some work to do in the hospital and would have a scar to remind him daily of that night. But he would have been alive!

If just one person valued his life. As a human being. As someone they saw get shot, or watched slowly bleed to death. If just one person had gone to a pay phone right there on the corner and had dialed 911 to give an anonymous report that someone had been shot, Jamal would have been the victim of an armed robbery instead of the victim of a murder. 

We say all the time that criminals won't obey laws and won't stop being criminals because guns have been outlawed. If someone wants to kill, they'll find a way. Bombs, knives, cars, whatever they have to use. 

But beyond all of that, every time there is a shooting, I hear a lot about what punishments should be given out to all of us who didn't do it, what rights we are expected to give up. I never hear anyone talk about fixing the gang problem, how exactly we should tackle the mental health issue we keep bringing up, root causes, etc. All we hear about is guns guns guns. Let's arm teachers. Let's write more laws. Let's put up metal detectors in schools. Let's repeal the second amendment. Let's pull some heartstrings by thrusting kids into the middle of a political debate they know nothing about and probably can't handle. Let's blame the NRA. Let's blame Hollywood. Let's blame the president. Let's blame video games. 

At what point do we sit back and say, "How about we discuss how we treat each other?" 

Look, the issue is multi-faceted. There isn't one fix all. Nothing done is going to please everyone. Everyone is always going to fight. But one thing we can work on is how do we instill the proper treatment of each other into our kids? How do we instill that value into ourselves? 

Are you bullying your classmates? Are you ignoring the people around you? Would you call 911 if you saw a man bleeding to death in the street?

How did you treat the last homeless person you passed? Did you feel anything? Whether you gave him anything or not, did you feel something inside that couldn't be described as disdain? Did you realize he was a person just like you? Did you feel bad for him or did you assume he was a drunk or a drug addict with no evidence and didn't deserve your pity? 

How did you treat the last waiter or delivery person you had contact with? Did you leave a tip? Did you get angry because of something that they had no control over? Did you give them a dirty look? Did you ask for 100 different things 100 different times instead of all at once so they could do one trip instead of 100? Did you berate or laugh at them? Did you assume they were uneducated? 

​How about the other people driving around you on the road? Did you flip someone off for doing the speed limit? Did you get angry because you wanted to drive faster and they didn't? Did you over dramatically pass someone and get too close when cutting in front of them? Did you tailgate someone to make them drive faster? Did you cut them off? Did to slow to a crawl even though it wasn't necessary to oggle a wreck on the road even though you've seen a hundred wrecks just like it before? Did you laugh at someone who got pulled over? 

I'm not saying you have to act in a manner that would have you up for sainthood. But at some point we need to sit back and realize that we don't treat our fellow human beings as fellow human beings. We treat people as though they are beneath us. We don't see the people driving those cars. We don't understand that the waiter isn't just a waiter, that he has a lot of other aspects of existence that make him up, and his reason for living isn't to bring you junk food. We don't see a homeless person as the same as us, they're an expendable nuisance instead of a Veteran with PTSD who needs help, not hate. We see people in trouble and assume someone else will do something. 

Even these mass shootings have no humanity. People are dying. The shooting isn't even over yet before the political fights begin, and no one stops to think about the kids who survived and what that several minutes is going to do to the rest of their lives. We don't think about that frantic feeling of every single parent of every single child within 50 miles of that scene. We don't think about how the teachers feel because they couldn't prevent a child from being killed even if they prevented another 30 from being killed. We spend a moment to point out the heroes, but don't think about how horrible they feel that they couldn't save everyone. The media spends weeks on end giving us every detail about the life of the shooter without realizing that the next shooter is taking notes and worshiping this person as a hero, using these details to form his own plan and outdo him because it's a game to him. 

We don't give any value to the lives around us of people we don't personally know. Hell, sometimes we don't value the lives of people we do know. 

So yes, I carry a gun. I will always carry a gun. Because I know people don't value my life. I know my life could be cut short for the $2 in my pocket or because someone wants my car or my cell phone. Someone reading this right now disagrees with me and thinks I should die because I am pro-gun. Someone is reading this right now and hoping for my death so I can't vote in the midterms. Or because I voted for Trump. Or because of the color of my skin. I carry a gun because I have, in fact, looked down the barrel of someone's gun. I have been robbed. I have been assaulted. I have had someone try to stab me for my wallet. I have had someone road rage at me and try to get into my car. And the only person who truly values my life is me. I carry a gun because I want to survive. I don't want to hope someone calls 911 for me before I die. I don't want to stand helpless as I watch someone slaughter someone I love for nothing. I wish Jamal had had a gun. So I carry a gun. 

Among everything else going on in the gun world these days, another hot topic is arming teachers. Trump suggested it right after the Parkland shooting, and it began a very heated debate among the people. To date, I haven't touched on it much, but I want to go ahead and do that. 

You might be surprised to hear I don't support the suggestions put forth for arming teachers. Why? Because I believe it would a lot easier and much more stream lined if we just removed the laws that prevent them from doing so in the first place. 

You have to remember, with the leftists and gun grabbers, they have an all or none mentality. They aren't hearing what arming teachers actually means. They keep going on and on about how they don't want to carry a gun and they don't want teachers to be armed... the thing is, the suggestions put forth have never suggested forcing any teacher to carry a gun. It's voluntary, and only those who want to can. Meaning if you don't want to be armed you don't have to be. 

And leftists gun grabbers are using the same arguments here that they used against concealed carry in general, the same ideas that never panned out. "THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" Of course everyone was going to shoot everyone else and the murder rate was going to skyrocket and we'd be hearing gunfire all the time, taking cover for 3/4 of our day as the public shot at each other over line cutting disputes and hatred for someone's shoes. That never happened; concealed carriers still remain one of the most law abiding groups of people in the country. But now we're saying teachers will be shooting the kids for acting out in class and the students will steal their guns and all this other stuff. The schools will be war zones! Blood pouring from the lockers! Yeah, right. 

But I think a lot of that could be overlooked by just doing away with the law preventing them instead of creating another law or loophole to allow them to. Maybe concealed carry only for the buildings or something. The government should not be paying for their training. The government should not be paying for their guns. By removing the laws, we take government out of it completely. OK, now you can carry if you have a concealed carry license and are complying with state and Federal laws. You are required to go through the same training as any other concealed carrier, and the cost burden is yours, like everyone else. Your gun is your choice and the cost burden is yours. If you don't want to carry, don't. 

However, I also support school guards. There are plenty of veterans who are out of work right now who would love a job protecting kids. They are fully trained with their weapons, they have procedure down pat, and they have training far and above anything you could ask a teacher to go through. You'd be giving these men and women a full time job that they would enjoy, and you would be getting extra out of the military training they received. I would put one at every door leading outside from a hallway or office cluster, and two roaming hallways per building. Uniform: polo shit and khakis in the school colors. 

Schools should be carrying out basic safety procedures. I recently started delivering food for an app service part time, and I deliver to several schools. And I'm noticing things. One school is locked down like Fort Knox. You aren't getting in there unless someone physically lets you in. And the people are placed away from the doors in such an way that if a nutter tried shooting through the doors, if a bullet went through, the office personnel would not be hit. Another school, however, has entrances in various areas - as well as stand alone trailer classrooms - that lead directly to classrooms. The doors are glass. There is no one in the hallways. I don't know if they are locked during school hours, and I don't know the rating on the glass, if it even has one. Each classroom has a door leading outside - also glass. Those are not locked, because I've driven by and seen them propped open during the day. This should not be. Those doors are there for quick exit during a fire, but I think they are a terrible idea. If they are there, they should be solid metal doors that remain locked at all times, and should have a fire alarm that sounds if opened. This shouldn't be a problem, considering other classrooms have bookcases in front of them anyway. So what's the use? 

I've been in a school that was evacuated due to fire (we had a stage in our gym, and the lighting system fell and caught the stage on fire). The school wasn't all ground level like these; it was four floors high with twisting hallways, long staircases, no elevators, and lots of other obstacles. We all got out fine. That's what fire drills are for. 

A big portion of the argument against doing anything safety wise in the schools is the fact that people don't want schools to be prisons. But the fact is, a lot of schools have metal detectors and police roaming the hallways. When I was high school age, our local public high school was that way. And that was in the early and mid 90s. Now, that was a rough school (note: total number of mass shootings: 0. Total number of shootings of any kind: 0). So I'm not saying every school should be like this. But doing basic things to defend students should be a no brainer. And having armed veterans is not, in fact, a bad idea. Odds are, after the first week, the kids would forget they were even there. 

And here's where honesty comes in. A lot of the problems in the schools are your little special snowflakes. We have resource officers in the schools because your little tykes can act like real buttholes sometimes. And at the end of the day, your precious little ones are spending their day cutting each other down to build themselves up. We keep hearing about what everyone else has to do. How about what you, as parents, are going to do? What are you going to do, tonight, to teach your child to not be a little piece of trash? And no, I don't want to hear about how your kid would never do anything like that. What you think and what is reality is irrelevant. You don't know what your kid is doing at school. So maybe we can work towards raising kids who learn to respect others, to respect human life, and to not treat each other like garbage so they can be "cool." Stop expecting everyone else to raise your kids, and start taking them in hand yourself. Teach them values and morals. And when you hear your kid did something to another student, discipline them. Stop chastising other parents for raising their voices to their kids or doing something to discipline them. Kids don't raise themselves. You have to raise them. They aren't an accessory, a quick way to a pay raise at work, or something you have because you are expected to. If you can't bring yourself to raise your child to be a decent human being, don't have a child. But if you do have a child, raise them. 

To the kids themselves... stop spending your time telling everyone else what they have to do to make your school safer. Take a minute away from preening in the bathroom mirror or trying to be the most popular kid in school, and realize that matters not one bit in life. Talk to the kid no one else is talking to. You don't have to become best friends with them, but say hi when you pass them in the hallway. Maybe once in a while do something like tell them you forgot to write down the homework assignment for the night and ask if they have it so you can see what you need to do for homework. Nothing too serious. Just enough that the kid doesn't feel invisible. And if you don't like someone, that's fine. Ignore them instead of torturing them. If you want your 15 minutes of fame, you have a great shot at getting it by doing something good for someone or by doing something others can't do then you do by torturing someone for an online video. And since that stuff will haunt you for the rest of your life online anyway - especially if you got your 15 minutes of fame from it - it will do you better trying to get into colleges or trying to get jobs if your 15 minutes came from something amazing instead of something showcasing your torture abilities. No college and no hiring company wants a butthole around. 

Now I know, no one wants blame bullying or any of that stuff for these shootings. And that's fine, you can live in a dream land where these things happen out of thin air and everyone just randomly snaps for no reason. But the fact of the matter is that a simple hi once in a while can snap someone out of their own dreamland of mass killing. It gives them some fleeting hope that maybe someone actually sees them and they aren't as worthless as they think they are. Yeah, I believe these shooters have mental issues. That's sort of obvious. But people who are unstable can be set off. You can, in fact, make a big difference with people like that by doing simple things. 

Anyway, these are just some ways to make schools safer. The most important ways being veterans protecting our kids and removing laws that keep teachers defenseless. If teachers want to be armed, they should able to do so, on their own dime. If they don't want to to be armed, that, too, should be their choice. And it is high time schools get their acts together and start being serious about school security. That's actual school safety. And it doesn't violate anyone's constitutional rights. 

I read this article this morning and started thinking. As a former smoker, I watched the progression of smoking laws in that area. And I found the article profound for more than the smoking laws. This is how we outlaw things in the USA - in pieces. 

Lately, bump stocks for rifles have been back in the news, with Trump coming out hard against them. The media regularly states, mockingly, that people who disagree with the ban see it as a "slippery slope." Because how laughable is that, right?

Not very. It's the truth. And we have a lot of things to point to to prove it. I could point out that the UK successfully got rid of guns and they are now moving on to knives, because as I have been stating for years, it's never enough. These types don't stop to soak in a victory, they move on to the next thing they want banned "for your own good." And they will never stop. 

​But instead, let's look at what NY is doing with smoking. Of course, you have "the children" being used as an excuse, because literally 4 things on Earth right now won't kill your kids and we have to ban everything else. Kids born after 1990 are all apparently made from glass and paper and are so much more emotionally sensitive than generations before them. So every law they want to pass that restricts any form of freedom is, of course, in the name of children. Besides abortion. You can have one if you want, that's cool.

​NY wants smoking banned. Period. But the outrage would be amazing, and a lot of people would be voted out of office. There are still a lot of smokers out there, and with vapers being demonized along with them, you can triple the number of people being outraged. So we do it in pieces.

Start raising the taxes. Currently, a pack of smokes in NY can cost upwards of $13. That's a pack of 20 cigarettes. Most of that cost is going to the government so they can buy $58,000 toilet seats or ensure their hallways have real marble on the floors and walls, with the extra money is for getting it up on the ceiling, too, and maybe some gold gilding. You can bet it isn't actually going back to the community for education or anything like that. The kids are only useful for agenda reasons, after all. 

Then ban smoking indoors. Ban smoking in certain places, like parks. Then ban smoking where kids are present. Ban smoking in hotels. Cops can approach you to inspect your cigarette packs to ensure you have the stamp on them that says you bought them in state and paid the tax. Now, if you are walking and smoking you can be fined $50. At some point they'll ban smoking in rental properties, which means if you live in an apartment in NY you won't be allowed to smoke there. They'll move to banning smoking in cars because, after all, if your smoke is causing this politician to have some kind of demonic fit just by being 200 feet behind a smoker on the street, he's really going to have issues with driving smokers who are releasing their demons over many blocks! They'll keep enacting more and more laws about where you can't smoke and what you can't be doing while smoking until you literally will not be able to smoke in the state unless you are on a property that is owned by you - meaning the mortgage is paid off - and it is in some remote area where your nearest neighbor is a mile away. Then they can say they didn't actually ban smoking. You can still smoke. You can smoke all you want! Just follow these 85,000 pages of laws. 

You end up with people being forced to behave as the government wants them to, and you also create a black market. We all know about loosies. Eric Garner could tell you about loosies if he was still alive. No, that isn't a shot at the cops. But let's face it. He was approached by the cops for selling black market individual cigarettes (loosies), which is against the law (because the state doesn't make money off of it), a crime that was created by these very laws meant to ban cigarettes in pieces. People get arrested for selling loosies all the time. They get arrested for smuggling cigarettes from out of state all the time, too. NY created more crimes, and people are still smoking. 

Now we're doing it with guns. Well, we've been doing it with guns. But people don't see it. We have a constitutional right to bear arms, and a good majority of the country actually supports gun rights - regardless of what the media says, the research, polls, and studies don't support their claims - so an outright ban of all guns isn't going happen. And banning them in pieces is going to take longer. 

Full autos are banned. You can't open carry in some states, and in many states you need a license to carry concealed. In some states you really can't carry at all. In many states where carrying is legal, the cops will approach you every time they see you. In some states you can carry but the gun can't be loaded. In some states you have to pay the government to run a background check that gun stores run on rifles for free. Literally the exact same background check (the reason: revenue and the hopes that you won't bother driving out to the sheriff's department, where you have to pay for parking if you can even find it, to apply and also to pick up the permits since they need five days to complete an instant background check, during weekdays when everyone is working which means you have to take time off of work - twice - to complete the process).  

Now people are marching for a ban on "assault weapons." Because obviously banning a rifle used in a minuscule amount of gun crimes and deaths would make a huge impact, right? Once that's done, your deer hunting rifle will be deemed a "sniper rifle" and we'll start marching on Washington to have those banned. Then someone will start on handguns, probably starting with semi-autos because they can fire 800 rounds a minute or some made up horse manure like that. The revolvers will be a problem because the casings once used as evidence in crimes will be left inside the cylinder, making solving gun deaths harder. 

And we'll be standing here on the curb with a pump action shotgun that holds three rounds and a single shot 22 LR bolt action wondering what the heck happened. They didn't ban all guns, after all. You can still have fun at the range with that single shot 22 LR, and the shotgun is great for home defense, and you can hunt with it! Isn't your government benevolent?! 

Like a good portion of you, I am having a tough time supporting the kids walking out. And it isn't just because they are marching against the Constitution and their own freedoms and that what they are protesting for is something I am fully against. I'm not sure these kids have any idea what they are protesting. Yes, I am sure some of them do. But a good majority of them don't. And from what I have seen, knowing what you are protesting isn't something the schools are freely encouraging the kids to do. 

These kids are being fed. I'm sure they have opinions. I'm also sure they aren't getting both sides of the story. How many of them know the statistics for school shootings? The real ones put out by organizations who clearly define mass shootings and other crimes and keep track of them, not the padded numbers offered by the media. How many know the gun laws? The actual gun laws. How many know what representatives in their state to contact? Who was the protest aimed at? What, exactly, is an AR-15? What does "semi-automatic" mean? What is the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16? What independent research have they done without a parent or teacher over their shoulder? You all have smart phones, check it out while you're on the toilet. 

I'm going to assume not much personal research was done, otherwise this young lady would have realized that shirt wasn't appropriate for an anti-gun march, considering how prevalent that is in pro-gun culture. Like, you really can't do any opposition research without finding that term. 

The other reason I believe these kids are protesting based only on their parents and teachers' thoughts is because of the overuse of buzzwords and phrases. The above sign for example. Every anti-gun protest has that exact same sign. "Common sense gun control." "Gun show loophole." "I don't want to ban all guns, but..." "I'm pro second amendment, but..." The list goes on. The signs were the same generic signs at every gun control event. This is not the sign of independent thought. This is a sign of being showed one side of the story and argument. 

The same goes for the kids who were pro-gun. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not an original thought. It's another over used phrase that, while true, was fed to a teenager. 

However. It goes beyond that. In NC, students were basically forced to participate in the walk out because all the teachers were participating and no students could be in the classrooms alone. Therefore, all the students had to be where the teachers were. 

A young man in Ohio was suspended from school because he wanted to be a-political. He basically didn't want to take a side, and going outside for the walkout was support for gun control, but going to the common area was supporting gun rights. Instead of providing a place for kids to stay who didn't want to take sides for whatever reason, they tried to force them to take sides. 

​This is not a protest. When kids are not being presented both sides of the argument, are being suspended for not taking sides, and are being escorted away for having an opinion against gun control, that isn't a protest or students expressing themselves. That is forced dissent. These kids are being forced to protest something they don't even understand fully. 

The proper way to do this would be to encourage the kids to study both sides. Teach them how to think, not what to think. Do a report on both sides. Do a report supporting one side or arguing against one side. Heck, when I was in high school we had a public speaking team, and one of the categories you could do was called the "Lincoln-Douglas Debate." You gave the kids a topic and told them what side they were arguing - it didn't matter what side they agreed with - they were given time to research the topic, and then they debated each other on the topic. In a learning situation, you could get the kids to argue in favor of the side they disagreed with. What better way to learn about the opposing side then to defend it in a debate with intent to win! It forces the kids to learn about both sides of the issue, they all get to listen to different points of view, and they get to learn how to do an actual debate on top of it all! Win-win! 

But this is the overall issue I have with kids leading the fight. Yes, people listen to kids because of emotion and how hard it tugs their heart strings, and the leftist politicians do love to parade around children even though they really don't give a crud about them past their own agenda, the same as they feel about everyone else. It's power over all. But the reality of it is pretty cold. No, we shouldn't be listening to kids. Do they have a right to protest? Of course. They are citizens, too, and have the same rights as anyone else. But like celebrities, their opinions hold no more weight than anyone else's.  Less, even. Kids are not being taught how to think. They aren't being taught to study both sides of an issue and to form an honest opinion. They aren't being taught to sift through the crap to find the facts. They are being told what to think. They are being given lines and buzzwords and chant like sayings for standard signs and are being pushed in front of cameras to parrot it all back at us, because we feel things for kids. And we were all there. At some point, you believed what your parents believed. Then you believed the opposite of what they believed because that was being rebellious. And then you had life experiences and began doing your own research and really looking into issues and you began to form your own opinions. You stopped caring about being accepted by your peers or making mom and dad proud. Some of your opinions stayed the same, but many changed. Right now, though, these kids are in their teen years. They want to make their peers accept them and they want mom and dad to be proud. They don't want to argue with their parents or stand too far out from the crowd. They don't want to be the weird kid no one talks to and who people whisper about as they walk down the halls. They don't want to be like the school shooters, the weird kids no one bothered with. 

So yes, I believe the kids should be allowed to protest. But I also believe we need to get back to teaching our kids how to think and stop telling them what to think. We need to encourage our kids to learn about a topic before diving into it. And I think we need to stop making national spectacles out of our kids for an agenda they don't fully understand. Let your kids be kids. Let them grow up and get some life experience. Let them learn and be carefree. Those carefree years go by so fast. They don't understand yet that the world isn't a safe place. They want it to be, we all do, but it isn't. But most of all, allow them to become who they are meant to become, not what you force them to be. 

And let's be fair. If the protests are allowed for one, they must be allowed for all, and the schools aren't prepared for that. Kids will find something to protest every day if it gets them out of class. But stop teaching them an agenda. 

Every few years - especially at times like right now, when the gun debate is in full swing - stories get done about a town that requires all heads of household to maintain a firearm. This go around, we can thank CNN and Fox News alike for telling us - again - about Kennesaw, Georgia. 

In 1982, a law was enacted in Kennesaw, Georgia that says all heads of household must maintain a firearm. As they state, the law is not actually enforced. How could it be? Would they have a gun inspection? Do you let the cops into your home on a whim to see if you have a gun and to make sure it is well maintained? But still, the law is on the books. 

There are pros and cons to this. Of course, their crime rate is ridiculously low there. Would you assault someone or rob them knowing the town has a law in place stating they have to have a gun? The odds are extremely good in this instance that you'll get shot if you enter a home uninvited, or your victim may fight back in the street. You might be in the wrong town, my friend! 

However, I always recoil at the thought of being forced to own a gun. Now, I'm a second amendment supporter to the full extent. I also do happen to own guns. And I maintain them very well. But I see the second amendment as a right... not a requirement. 

As stated, the law isn't exactly enforced. A lot of gun laws aren't enforced in this country, as we know, which is why so few people get prosecuted for straw sales or lying on the 4473 to purchase a firearm. But what if it was? What would that mean?

Well, first of all, the questions I had above would be answered. In order to enforce the law, your gun collection would need to be verified. How is that done? Well... you might have to register those firearms. Which means at a later date they can be collected by extreme leftists if they get their agenda, or you could be taxed to death on them. And since you are required to own a gun, you'd have to pony up that tax no matter what. If you didn't, you'd be in violation of the law, and if you got rid of the gun to get out of the tax you'd be in violation of another law. 

Or, maybe the cops would come into your home once a year to make sure there was a gun on your property and you were keeping it clean and in working order. This means allowing the police to search your home, if even in a small amount. 

What happens if you go out of town? Since everyone in town is required to maintain a firearm, if you go on vacation for a week, your home is a prime target during the night. You'd have to get top notch security on your home, because a robber knows there is at least one gun in your house and you aren't there. And in the middle of the night, your neighbors are sleeping, not keeping an eye on your home. 

Aside from all of this, the right the keep and bear arms is just that. A right. It isn't a requirement. Some people don't want a gun, and that is their right. Look, I don't like people telling me I can't have a gun, and because of how that makes me feel, I wouldn't want to tell someone they must own one. If you want to practice the right, practice it. If you don't, you shouldn't be forced to. You're right to not own a gun is just as important as my right to own one. You should do what makes you feel safe in your home. I feel safer with a gun. You might feel safer without one. I don't know what's best for you, just as you don't know what's best for me. 

So nice story, but in reality, it is a bad law. Don't force people to do things they don't want to do. No one should have to move out of an area because of the laws, whether it be the people living in places like California that feel they need to move out of their state to reach freedom or people in Kennesaw, Georgia who feel they need to move out because they really don't want a gun in their homes. The Bill of Rights are rights, not demands. They lay out the freedoms we as Americans have and should maintain. They don't say those rights are demands.