Something on my Mind: I Believe in Gun Control

Okay, okay, maybe I tricked you with my heading. But I do believe in gun control, just not in the popular, de-fanging way the mindless media and sappy socialists choose to use it. I'm using the word “control” in a very different sense—a common sense way, if you will.

I like to think that they have failed to consider the ramifications of a defenceless, vulnerable populace. I can't believe that their agenda is more sinister than that, namely, to disarm, then effectively control their own citizens.

So here's my take on gun control:

Control your temper over the injustice that is being foisted upon you and all other freedom-loving and crime-hating fellow-citizens. For myself, I tend to be a little naive about guns and rifles. When I was younger, I used to “gun” my car when I was in the mood (sorry Officer Jones); and sometimes I was able to “rifle” a football when I played Monday night sandlot football with my Gospel Hall buddies.

But that inexperience with guns and rifles hasn't stopped me from really examining the issues at stake. I just cannot fathom elected officials and bleeding hearts taking a stand against law-abiding citizens owning their own firearms. If I do think about it, I have trouble controlling my own temper.

Control your dread when you realize that a gun registry (so euphemistically presented here in Canada) is closer to reality, now that the L-people are in power. That is one of the most powerful reasons I was alarmed with Canadians voting in Trudeau and his cronies a couple of weeks ago.

Do you think for one moment that deadbeats and lowbrows are going to register their guns? Me neither. Basically the good guys comply, but the bad guys don't. Then the good guys die and bad guys get away with murder...literally.

Control your arsenal of guns and rifles that you own. Everyone should have guns--that's a given, at least from my perspective; but don't have so many that other good people can't. Share the booty with all rational people who have that innate sense of responsibility towards themselves and their neighbours.

We need more guns, not fewer; and we need more grassroots citizens and less politicians making these decisions.

Control your emotions as you understand how many deaths could have been prevented if there had been a “concealed carrier” at this school, that store, or church across town. It will only get worse, as more and more deranged gunmen understand that a defenceless populace is ripe for the sniping.

Space does not allow a clear presentation of the empirical evidence of gun-free versus “gun freedom.” The former is an illusion, the latter is a right. I suggest you do some research: What is the death rate when it is known that the citizens are armed versus when they are not armed? The facts may astound you.

Control your urge to shoot haphazardly; you really need to know what you're aiming and shooting at. Random, senseless shooting marks those gunmen with a grudge against life. Rational, normal humans don't do that. Think, warn, then shoot.

Go to a shooting range. Get licensed. Take a course. Join a rifle club. Spend Saturday morning with the kids in target practice. Learn the ropes from veteran hunters and gun owners. Whatever you do, get your ability to shoot under control.

Control your understanding of what is being touted as an airtight argument: “Guns kill people,” they say. No, people kill people. It's wrong people who need to be made right that's the solution. We need to disarm the bad guys and equip the good guys. Guns in the wrong hands wreak irreparable damage, for sure. But guns in the right hands create a safer environment.

By the way, using the above argument, should we then ban cars because “cars kill people”? How foolish can our leaders and anti-gun lobbyists be? Are they that simple-minded or short-sighted...or is there something?

Well, that's just for starters. I think anyone who actually has had a brush with some mad man with a gun would be even more passionate about this matter than me. There is so much good that comes out of a well-equipped (= ready and prepared but not necessarily active) populace .

With the blur of immigration chaos and the rise in our own dysfunctional (mostly young) people, this matter is not going away. But this is not the time to disarm the citizens of the land.

“O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: The Collapse of Infrastructure

I think most people are clear on “infrastructure.” So when I use that term, I am referring to such things as banking, utilities, highways, and common laws—in other words, any system that supports a civilized society.

And I think most people would agree that without adequate infrastructure, every city and country would be the doomed. Re-stated: If there's no appropriate infrastructure, all civil order is reduced to a primitive existence. (Think cavemen without the loincloth.)

Imagine any weather-ravaged city or war-torn country in recent years. Or just consider the chaos that is mounting with the hordes of desperate refugees surging throughout eastern Europe. In both cases, there is an immediate need for an epic re-build to take care of all the basic needs of a desperate populace.

On that note, however, I believe we have foolishly overlooked another aspect of infrastructure, one that is slowly falling apart before our very eyes. And the irony is as follows: We will pour millions of dollars into some foreign country to help in them in their hour of need, yet ignore our own imploding situation.

I am speaking, of course, of the diminishing support for families right here at home.

Just as we need appropriate banking, utilities, highways and laws to keep a civilized society from falling apart, we also need the family structure to do the same for the nation—this nation, that nation, every nation.

If you want to work with an analogy, try this one: Families are the foundation and framework of the house, not the sheeting or the shingles. You may tweak the siding or roofing and not make a difference; however, you mess with the foundation or framework of the house, and you have “structural” damage.

Without effective family infrastructure, any civilized society is finished. This is not a moral rant from a rabid right-winger; this is the conclusion of empirical, historical evidence.

The effects of such an implosion may not be felt for a generation or two, but it will still come. And to put things into perspective, we're probably looking back at the 60's or 70's when the family unit started falling apart. That's why we are seeing the moral mess now.

As the framework of traditional marriage crumbles, the greatest impact is on the children. The home is where children are reared in a stable and supportive home of a mom and dad, where character, faith, morals, ethics, and behaviour are taught and caught. And the children of today are the adults of tomorrow. What sort of future are we grooming?

And as the traditional family model continues to lose it role, rights, and relevance (at least in the minds of too many), we should all be alarmed at the consequences of such short-sighted thinking. Any, and I repeat, “any” civilized society—pick your millennium, please—that endured always had strong family infrastructure.

To be sure, there is a place for the church, school, and state in this process. They need to be supporting families, not running them; alongside them, not over them. We've got it backwards today, and we're paying the price.

Let's go back to the usual use of the word “infrastructure,” using power as an example. You don't have the grid, the wires, or the bills before you have the water. Water is the foundation of everything else. No water, no power. Everything comes out of the wise use of the water.

Get the water source first, the dams to generate the power, the wires to transmit it, the lights and outlets to utilize it, then the administration to service it, and you have a successful electrical infrastructure.

The same thing follows with the family infrastructure. As our power comes out of the effective and proper use of water, so too our societal success comes out of the appreciation and need for the family. From that basis, citizens are are developed, homes are established, laws are maintained, and so on.

You might say that, either way, no society can survive without laws or light.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I'll Be Honest With You (2)

For me, one of life's greatest pleasures is playing and working with words. Mostly I express this through writing and speaking: one form of writing comes via this column; and speaking comes through teaching, preaching, quipping, and just plain old talking.

Ironically, the above is also one of my greatest weaknesses. (I'm just being “honest” with you here.)

I have done much damage with my talk in various relationships over the years—you know, the husband, father, teacher, and preacher roles. It bothers me and I wish I could repair all the damage I've done. It's like throwing a dandelion to the wind, then trying to piece it back together again—it just can't be done.

So now I try to think more before I speak, and respond better by using appropriate words. Even then, I don't always succeed.

That's one advantage of writing this column: I can delete, edit, and re-work before everything before it goes to print. I can't do that when I speak. There's no verbal “delete button” for my words.

Most thinking people reading this can probably relate to such miscommunication. If not, what's wrong with you, loser? (Oops. Let me edit that. What I meant to say was: I'm sorry you're struggling with that, dear friend.)

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that we want open, honest relationships. However, we can be too timid or touchy, and that's a real problem. I know there are times I am just too thin-skinned. Makes it hard for those around me, but it also makes it hard for me, too.

However, the inverse is true, too: We can be so bold and brash that we say whatever is on our mind, to whomever is within hearing range. “Just being honest,” we say; “just speaking our mind.”

No, just being an inconsiderate and insensitive oaf, I'd say. (Did I say that kindly enough?)

There's a balance somewhere in between: We need to speak openly and accurately, yes, yet with as little offence as possible. Doesn't always work, but at least we can try. I have to work at this on a daily basis. (Just another “honest” confession on my part.)

The other side of the honesty discussion is when we're on the receiving end of someone's so-called honesty. Too much “honesty,” or whatever you want to call it, and we get hurt. It happens to me all the time, but at the age of 61, I have to suck it up, keeping smiling, and try to control my temper and tongue...or tears.

When someone offends me in a conversation, am I at ease to speak my mind? Can I assert myself (without tone) and push back? Seldom, if ever, have I developed the art of (what appears to be) a mature and controlled response.

If there is hurt, I usually just move on, without really dealing with it.

To date, I have never figured out whether that is actually the right response: Am I being mature or wussy? Under self-control or under an illusion? Choosing to push back or push on?

Obviously, we can be too touchy. This becomes yet another problem. But when there needs to be a frank response, when we need to speak our mind and we don't, we complicate matters. Oftentimes the offender doesn't know they have offended. Body language, vague words, or even stoney silence, say something, but they may not be honest, caring responses.

Honesty is the best policy, to be sure, but it is the most difficult policy. We have to develop the ability and courage to articulate our responses. Lashing out, screaming, or having some form of a hissy fit, are not the way to go. Never.

We need to take more risks with each other, then prepare to suffer some collateral damage along the way. It's short term pain for long term gain. Open but discreet, vulnerable but firm, these qualities make for stronger relationships and deeper friendships.

Friendships. Remember how it was with your best friend in grade 5? You could be frank and fun with your pal-of-all-pals when you were ten. Too bad we can't turn back the clock.

I'm sure we would all like to be more transparent with people. For myself, too often I have my guard up a mile high, as I tend to be consistently misunderstood. Foot in mouth? I have room for a rackful of shoes.

It starts with me (and you—you're not of the hook. Oops, did I say that nicely?): We need to be a safe person (remember that column?) and we need to be around safe people. A safe person (me, you or the other guy) is one who is always there, shielding others from the waves of misunderstanding and the rocks of insecurity. We all need that deep harbour of warm, honest relationships.

I mean it, honestly.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Right is Right, Right?

Exactly one week from today, you may be waking up to a different Canada. Oh, the mountains and prairies will still be here; Hockey Night in Canada, Burger King, and Walmart will still be here; and I'll still be here, so it won't be all that bad.

No, I'm talking about the results of an election that will have taken place the night before. Strangely enough, I'm not as worried about Harper losing (remote possibility), as I am worried about one of those other two guys winning. I know there's a third party running, but I don't want to waste space and time using the G-word. Our gracious democracy has a few quirks, you know.

Traditionally, Canada has always had one of two parties ruining, er, running the country. One is the L-word and the other is the Conservatives. But I sit somewhere between baffled and piqued, with a touch of scared, when I think that the next ruling party of Canada might start with the letter N.

Too many people here in Alberta were stupid enough to vote NDP—so now the rest of Canada follows suit?

Purists may argue that the Liberals have always been more liberal (play on words intended) than the Conservatives, and shouldn't be lumped in with them. True, but the Liberals of the past are no match for what's coming down the pike in the person of Justin Trudeau.

If you thought those clowns that have led the Liberals in the past decade or two were scary, buckle up for a new ride. While I don't think they will form even a minority government, their popularity among some of the electorate intrigues me. Could they become, God forbid, the official opposition?

Where did the old fashioned qualities of discernment and insight go?

Even if you don't appreciate Mr. Harper's policies in every decision, he is still the best choice out there...bar none. Or better stated, if he's Number One, the other two are tied for Seventeenth. It's just unthinkable that we could wake up to a Canada ruled by either the NDP or Liberals.

If that was the case, let's hope to God in heaven above that it's a minority government, so another party can hold their feet to the fire. If we get a majority NDP-led government, I'm moving to Idaho. I would look forward to living under President Huckabee and Vice-president Carson.

Most of my venom (read: acidic opinion; nothing personal, Tom, nothing personal) is directed toward the NDP. I don't actually think the Liberals will make much headway and the other party isn't worth mentioning. (Mind you, I didn't think the NDP would have made much headway here in Alberta either.)

I've seen the irreparable damage the NDP have done at the provincial level. Federally, I gag when I see their platform Not only do they have contempt for big business, now I'm hearing of their contempt for small business. How else do you explain the devastating impact of a $15/hour minimum wage? They say they're for the little guy—but that must no longer apply to small retailers and manufacturers. I don't even have an economics degree and I can see that.

I am also aware of their mistaken support for same-sex marriage, feminism, and abortion. A true conservative, on the other hand, would struggle with those positions.

Let me mention a couple of themes that have shown up in this space before:

One, a conservative government in every aspect is what's best for the nation and the provinces. Re-stated: They must be conservative economically, morally, socially, and environmentally. These are not the right times to bring in a newbie, with a brand-new, sweeping agenda, one who has no regards for precedent or caution, or no experience in running the country. There's some frightening turbulence out there, at every level. We need calm, measured, and experienced leadership.

And two, whether it's the Liberals or NDP, a left-of-centre opposition is healthy opposition. I have always appreciated an NDP opposition, even if they're cranky and loud. They just belong on the other side of the parliamentary floor.

So, next week you have the privilege and duty to vote. Sitting home and whining about it does nothing to correct it. Even writing about it (like I do) isn't enough. We need to get of the couch and into the polling stations. And bring your brains along: We don't need to make anymore goofy choices like Albertans did a few months ago.

We need to take advantage of the opportunity of voting in free elections seriously. The practice of voting is one hallmark of a free society. Cherish it while it lasts.

“X” marks the spot, they say, and the only spot on the ballot is beside the name of the Conservative candidate.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com