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. 

Oh, there are so many directions I can go with this one, let's have some fun! 

According to this, a gym in Atlanta, Georgia posted up a handwritten sign banning cops and veterans from using their facility. The message posted looks very disjointed and was apparently written with someone's foot. 

First off... a question. Since they are using their right as a business owner to refuse to do business with certain groups of individuals based on a personal moral code, are they going to be heavily fined and run out of business for it?

Now. Obviously, this is their business. They have the right to do business with whoever they please, and turn away whoever they please. That doesn't seem to work out so well for a lot of folks, but this is how it is supposed to work. You have the right to go elsewhere. As was stated in the cases with the bakers who refused service for a gay wedding, why would you want to go to a gym where the guy who owns the joint hates you based on your profession? 

In this case, response time might be a little delayed if something goes down that requires law enforcement assistance, as well. Those are the gambles you take. 

As a citizen who is neither a cop nor a veteran, I might be a little hesitant to use the gym as well. Since the owner hates the cops so much, if someone steals something from my locker or kicks the crap out of me in the shower, are they going to call 911 to assist me, or am I on my own because the owner just can't stand having cops around? If I fling myself off of a piece of equipment and slam into a wall like a rag doll, will he call 911 to get me an ambulance, or am I on my own again because he doesn't want to risk the EMTs being veterans? So yeah, I might consider going elsewhere as well. 

Look, I'm going to defend this gym the same way I defended those bakers who turned away the gay wedding. It's their business. They should have the right to turn away whoever they want, and the people can decide for themselves after that decision is made if they want to do business with this place themselves even if they don't fit into the refused categories. You can't legislate morality. Period. It doesn't work. But you can make a choice to stand up for the refused groups by going somewhere else as well if you don't agree with the decision. If you are part of the refused groups, why would you want to do business with someone who doesn't want you around? Go elsewhere, the experience will be better. And let the market bear the brunt of their decision. 

According to this, the sign has been removed, but will be replaced with another sign that removes the vulgarity. He claims the ban is because he caters to minorities who are uncomfortable with cops. No word on whether or not he actually asked those minorities if cops make them uncomfortable or if he just assumed they did. 

See this girl? This is why I could never be a cop. My hat's off to these cops, because they have the patience of saints! 

While I was watching this - knowing that it was released because the girl was claiming sexual assault - I thought about another video I had seen that involved cops dealing with a young girl. The girl was one of those "sovereign citizen" (or article 4 free inhabitant) people, and she was being very belligerent because she decided she didn't need to do anything the cop said. Because as a "sovereign citizen," as the woman put it, she was covered under the Constitution but not required to follow any of our laws. OK. Not sure how that works.

Anyway, the cop finally got her out of the car he was trying to tow away, and he was going to arrest her. He needed to remove her backpack, and she refused. A whole new battle began, but at this point, the girl started telling the cop it was rape. She also began screaming that she was being raped.

See for yourself. She starts yelling about rape about 3:07:   

This is one of the issues I have with modern day feminism and leftism. The definition of "rape" has become so broad that no one knows what it is anymore. That goes for a lot of words such as racist, sexist, homophobic, and, sadly, hero, among many others. 

The girls in both of these videos truly believe they were being sexually assaulted. I have no doubt in my mind. The first one, no matter what the cops or sane people say, she is going to hold fast to the idea that she was doing nothing wrong and that cop sexually assaulted her. She probably feels the body cam footage backs up her story. She has an alternate view of reality from the rest of us.

But this is becoming more and more prevalent in PC culture. And it is going to make life for the rest of us very difficult. Because by her logic, if you are in a narrow hallway with her and pass by, accidentally rubbing your upper arm across her breast, you are now guilty of sexual assault and should be arrested and charged with such. 

This isn't bringing awareness to or helping to stop "rape culture." All it does is further divide and separate us. As a woman, I can tell you, I already have to deal with men treating me with kid gloves only because they are unsure of whether or not I will misconstrue their intentions, words, or actions and cause them a lot of grief. I'm not that type of woman, but they don't know that and are too afraid to take a chance. This results in me losing out on possible good friendships with the men around me. 

Aside from that, you are spitting in the face of every person on Earth who has actually been sexually assaulted or raped. Those are real people who had their lives altered in ways you could never possibly imagine. They are going to be dealing with that for the rest of their lives. And you are making light of what they have actually been through. Yes, you are making a mockery of it and should be ashamed of yourself. 

I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, but I'd love to see us stop this garbage and come together as a people. We aren't against each other, folks. You aren't my enemy. Stop teaching our younger generations that everyone is out to get them, they are entitled to everything, and the ultimate goal is to be the biggest victim you know. It isn't. The ultimate goal is to live a good life. Period. And none of us can do that while we're all each other's enemy.