GUNS AND GENERATIONS

There were two guns in the house, one in one drawer, one in another.

Dad was a policeman. One gun was his service revolver, the other one was for off-duty wear. I'm sure somewhere along the line I was told to stay away from them, and for the most part I did. I do remember once picking up his 38 service revolver and thinking how heavy it was and putting it back immediately. After all I was told by my dad to stay away from it.

I have heard stories about kids who grew up in rural areas coming to school in their pickup trucks with their rifles secured in the seemingly required rifle rack and even comparing their rifles with their teachers' rifles.

Today, if a gun is not kept in a safe, the parent could face charges. Any kid bringing a rifle within 3 miles of a school would require the deployment of the closest SWAT team.

Same pistol, same rifle, different times.

The times have changed and yet a certain segment of society (the heart), rather than looking at the changes in society, seem to believe the problem is with the gun, which is the same hunk of metal it has always been, just today the gun lives in a different world.

The element of American society which, I believe, produced the activator of gun violence is the continuing decline in our respect for authority.

I respected my parents. I trusted them to lead me in the right direction, to have my well being in their every action. I, of course, never articulated that, but looking back, it was who they were. Even as young people we knew, at some level, when we were doing right or wrong, good or bad. We knew if our actions were acceptable or not acceptable. We trusted our parents to verify those beliefs by demonstrating their love to reinforce, or by "punishment" to express displeasure and redirect future behaviors.

Did anything in that last paragraph tweak a nerve? If so, let me guess--the word "punishment." We have reached a point in our society where anything that would make our children "uncomfortable" must be strongly mitigated or completely eliminated lest children begin to think of themselves as fallible. The more "heart centered" (Liberal) among us may say, "When a parent removes love from a child for doing something "wrong" that means the parent,s love is conditional to be applied only when the child does what the parent wants." That’s stated as if it's a bad thing. We "head centered" (Conservatives) believe the parent doesn't actually stop loving a child for attempting to stuff a cantaloupe down the toilet but does remove an expression of their love regardless of the potential of hurting the child's delicate feelings. When a horse you are riding is headed off a cliff, you correct by pulling on the reins. I'm sure the horse would just rather keep galloping in the direction it's heading and feels the pulling of the reins a "punishment," but unless the rider and his trusting steed are interested in doing a Thelma and Louise, there is a time for punishment.

In a Ted Cruz campaign stop in Indiana, a 10-11-year-old boy shouted from the crowd, "You suck!"

Cruz responded, Hopefully someone has told you children should speak with respect. ... In my household when a child behaves like that they get a spanking. Social media lit up. How dare he suggest punishment, and a physical one at that. (Pulling the child's reins?) In my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine doing something like that boy did. If his "parents," and I use the term lightly, have a gun in their house, I strongly suggest they get an industrial-strength safe.

I didn’t play with my father's gun. I didn't play with it because I knew what was right and wrong and the ramifications of that knowledge. The gun had nothing to do with it.

Guns are guns; society transformed (After all "fundamental transformation" is the objective isn't it?) and "loosened" up. The heart side of our society sees that as progress. The head side of our society, not so much.

Over the years younger people's respect for authority has been severely undermined. This set back in societal evolution has come initially, and unfortunately, from children's ultimate authority figure, his/her parents The heart's desire for equality is mistakenly imposed on the children. The child is not the equal of the parent. The child is not the buddy of the parent. The child has enough friends, but only one set of parents. In schools we have children who are going free-range MMA on teachers with just minimal, if any consequences. The authority of police has been sabotaged by no less than the President of the US, and we have religion scorned and laughed at in the media and suppressed in actual practice.

We're growing a generation of children who do not respect the authority of parents, teachers, law enforcement and/or clergy. Where are our young people getting their role models? Will today’s marching orders, "If it feels good, do it," or "They are going to do it anyway," serve them well in the real world?

The head knows we are not all equal, but the heart is so mistakenly obsessed with equality that any activity that smacks of competition is stifled. Try to find a good old game of Musical Chairs. We have kids' rooms with shelves full of participation trophies. What happens to those ships that "never leave the harbor," when they get into high seas? What happens when our younger generations meet real physical adversity?

What happens when they can't win an argument of words? Why would they be able to engage in friendly discourse when they are rarely exposed to dissenting views, and if a dissenting view might be lingering in the air like the smell of rotting flesh, they can hopefully make it to their "safe place" until evil dissent is gone. If they can't effectively debate the issue, they could try getting physical to get their point across. My guess, with so little practice in the art of pugilism, (because that usually results in winners and losers) that won't end well. Knowing they have never lost in their lives, how is it possible other people don't see the world as they do? Time to move on to throwing rocks and bottles believing that will prove the validity of their beliefs. If they still can't get their way there is always a gun. A gun is a good final choice. They believe when they get caught, or if they off themselves from this meaningless world, the media will publicize them and their plight and will portray them as poor underprivileged kids that America (founded on racism and genocide) has failed. They will be famous, thereby justifying their over-inflated self-esteem.

We have to understand a gun is only a problem if it's in the hands of someone with a problem. What social structure are we establishing for a person to make an intelligent decision concerning their place in the world, understanding their personal pros and cons inventory and experiencing a realistic belief of what they have to offer and what they have to give? Where do they go for the truth? Are we, under the guise of helping, setting up our young people so the only way they can find validation and a sense of self-worth is in shooting up a school, church or movie house?

Let's stop wasting time trying to "control" guns. A Glock, in itself, is as dangerous as a Glockenspiel. Let's work on the environment the gun exists in. I'm confident if we refuse to ride the horse in the direction it's going and do our personal best to regenerate respect for parents, teachers, law enforcement, and clergy, the guns will control themselves.

IT'S MY PARTY AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO.

Lent is over so I don't listen to any more Progressive radio. When I did (and I'm going straight to heaven), a host, whose name I didn't catch, was a guest host. He was giving his ideas as to the difference between Liberals and Leftist. In general, he was saying that a Liberal wants to change things and will change through the voting booth, judicial system and modifications in the law. Whereas the Leftist wants to change things but will do it more "actively" through protests and the like. I can buy those distinctions.

Then he got more specific and spoke only about Liberalism. He gave a few examples of what Liberals are about. I was only able to catch the first couple because they got me thinking so hard, I didn't hear the rest, but the following two are plenty. They are:

Liberals are tasked with "Caring for the countries most vulnerable."

Liberals believe in "Live and let live."

A few thoughts on those Liberal tenets.

Listening to Mr. Host, you would get the impression that Conservatives don't care for the "most vulnerable." This fallacy is because of the successful branding done by the Left. We Conservatives don't seem to care because we don't jump on the band wagon every time a Liberal wants to "help" the most vulnerable. As a matter of fact, we may even attempt to unhitch the horses and hide the 101 trombones. Why would we attempt to sabotage Liberal initiatives if we actually cared?

Picture a family at Christmas time taking their four kids (6 to 11 years old) to Toys-R-Us. They are happily walking down the aisle and the kids start asking for all the toys that would make them happy. They are just at the end of aisle "A" and the kids have already asked for $1000 worth of toys. Mr. and Mrs. Middle-Class America do not have that kind of money, and they know that if they gave the kids, and we know kids are most vulnerable among us, everything they wanted it would not be good for building their character. No matter how much they got now they would only want more real soon.

Somebody at this point has an adult decision to make.

I remember hearing an interview with Newt Gingrich where he said something to the effect that we have two political parties, one wants to implement programs then look for where to get the money, the other looks at what money it has to determine what programs to implement. Do the kids at Toys-R-Us get the $1000 worth of toys they want and the parents take out a third mortgage, or do the parents lay down a budget of $100 because that's all they can afford? We know the $1000 parents will be loved by the kids in the short term and elected again as parents, but the $100 parents have made the unpopular decision and did what’s best for the family(country) in the long run.

What appears to be implied in the "caring for the most vulnerable" is attempting to achieve some parity among the people of the country. Here is a factoid that everyone knows but a certain segment of our society has trouble grasping--PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL. The difference in intelligence, physical attributes, drive, passion, etc. is evidenced every day. Danny DeVito, at 5 ft. tall, while a good actor is never going to play in the paint for an NBA team. If he really wanted to play in the NBA and put in 100% effort, I'm pretty sure the best he could get is a participation trophy. But I bet there are some members of our society who would want to drop the NBA basket height from 10' to 6' so "little people" would not feel so bad and would have a better chance to make the team. (There is a proposal out there to raise the basket from 10' to 12' next season and I suppose there will be protests by Little Lives Matter over that.)

As a country, we do not have enough money to give everybody what we, Left and Right, would like them to have, and everything they would like to have. That's why we have a Republican party. Somebody has to be the bad guy. Liberals have little problem spending other people's money because first of all, that's all they have to give, and secondly their desire to "care for the most vulnerable" is greater than their concern for the mundane (like money).

Let's give everybody "free" education, "free" healthcare, 40% minimum wage raise, additional maternity/paternity leave, increased unemployment benefits, forgiven student loan debt, paid family leave, and when Republicans do not go along with those proposals, they are considered haters and SEALS fighting the War on Women. If a person would look deep into why some of these great-to-have life changes are not approved by Republicans, it comes down to where does the money come from? If every new proposal came to the floor of Congress with a funding source, other than taking it from the productive members of our society, like a new proposal in our family budget has to have, maybe we could all live more like a family. A financially secure family.

One thing I know Mr. Host didn't say about the objectives of Liberalism was to be a steward of the public's money. We can't thrive, our system will not work, with just the constipation of the Right or the diarrhea of the Left. That's why the two parties exist to challenge each other to come up with the most effective programs at an affordable price.

The concentration on caring for the most vulnerable doesn't always involve money. The Liberals tie caring with the "live and let live" tenet. This philosophy covers life situations such as same-sex marriage, drug use, and use of a washroom du jour. The most vulnerable are most often the minorities. So the Democrat party, to be consistent with its values, has made a connection with the minority communities. Even though history and the present, other than saying they are for the minorities, has provided no visible proof minorities are any better off with Democrats, there is a symbiotic relationship of the Left and minorities. The Left has obviously done a better PR job with minorities than the right has, so in that regard, we should give the devil its due.

Once the Left has demonstrated its caring for the vulnerable LGBT community by guilting the 96% of the population who are not LGB or T to being OK with changing the centuries-old definition of marriage, the Left's work of finding some way to care for the gay and lesbian members of our society is winding down. Now they are going after helping the 0.03% of the population, who consider themselves "Ts," use whatever washroom/locker room he/she feels like using that day.

What's next? The Left believes this country need fixing (fundamental transformation). Now, what other groups of American citizens has this country, (founded on racial hatred, genocide, discrimination and bigotry), been keeping down? What else can the Left do to achieve greater equality among all men and women? They can bring up the bottom or bring down the top. If they bring up the bottom, that would require minorities to put in additional work by graduating from high school, trade school or college, learning more usable work and personal skills, and showing up to work every day on time. I don't know if that scenario fits in with the Left's vision of "caring for the most vulnerable." But, the bringing down the top through protests and redistributive tax changes just might work and that would put the least negative pressure on the minorities while at the same time providing them with "free" stuff thus reducing every shred of self-esteem they have.

So, who is there to stand up and appreciate the less "vulnerable" members of our society, those who today are feeling under attack?. Who is speaking up for; the hard working, church-going, married, English speaking, patriotic, straitlaced, self-reliant, white, educated, respectful, middle income, gun owning, politically moderate homeowners? In other words, who is standing up for (according to census figures) the majority? Who is watching the bank?That's why there is a Republican party.

The Republican party is the head, the Democrat party the heart of our country. We wouldn't be the country we are without our "parts." We often find our own personal "heads" in conflict with our own personal "hearts," and we are always able to work it out. Let's hope we can get that done for the country before it's too late.