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. 

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!