“Cluelessness, Cowardice, and Complicity”

– “At a recent town hall I held, several people said they wanted to explore smart gun technology to reduce accidents…Others mentioned liability reform to make sure those who are negligent with a gun are held financially responsible”

– “How many more times must this happen before we make this violence stop?”

The above three quotes are from a 24 February, 2016 article by Detroit Free Press guest writer and Democratic State Representative Jon Hoadley from Michigan’s 60th District regarding the recent and horrific killings that took place in Kalamazoo, MI.

The article, (http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/…) is filled with the same political rhetoric that is used each time a firearm is used in the commission of a crime by those who would have good people disarmed.

I recently responded to a gem of an editorial by a “News Leader” at the Flint Journal (https://www.facebook.com/notes/mdfi…) where in a whirlwind of nonsense and emotion, the author clamored for the halt of all handgun sales because the tool of the crime was in fact a semi-automatic handgun. Both articles (one being at least far more well written than the other) revert back to the same stance that all freedom-loving Americans should be very concerned with: There are people out there who would have you continue to give up rights for the illusion of safety.

Every time a someone suggests a restriction of the rights of the people over the actions of a few, we must assume one of two things: Intentional Action or Gross Ignorance.

Mr. Hoadley, like every other politician who would have defensive rights of good people whittled away chooses to pander to those who have no clue about firearms, why a free people should be armed, being a responsible gun owner, lawful use of force, and the god given rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

We hear the usual buzzwords like: universal background checks, waiting periods, expansion of gun-free-zones, NRA, and my personal favorites- “High Capacity Clips” and “Barrel Shrouds” (The ‘shoulder things that go up’ – Carolyn McCarthy)

In today’s United States, we have politicians that literally get up in front of us and make statements to the tune of, “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it!” (Nancy Pelosi) and scarier yet, Americans that are perfectly ok with it.

Mr. Hoadley writes that in his recent town-hall meeting he discussed his desire to explore “smart gun technology” to prevent accidents. Any person with a clue regarding the safe handling of firearms knows that the strict adherence to the established and practiced 4-life rules of firearms handling will prevent accidents and not break the bank. I find it humorous that in the history of stoves and the hundreds of thousands of people that have been badly burned, I don’t need to buy a stove with Apple’s HAL v2.0 operating system to ensure that I can cook dinner safely. (Yes, yes, enemies of freedom- stoves (cars, baseball bats, hammers, acid, pressure cookers) weren’t designed to kill so my argument is invalid.)

As this country is headed the way of “smart technology” for everything, it does not mean that the movie “Idiocracy” needs to move any closer to a documentary.

When we as grown adults find that a skillset in our lives are lacking, we train with the end-goal of fixing the shortcoming. We see this in our teen drivers training courses just like I attended at Loy Norrix High School decades ago. We as adults know that with time, dedication, and training that we can accomplish tasks properly in the course of our lives.

We educate our kids on pool safety, fire safety, drivers safety, drug safety, reproductive safety, etc., etc., yet the mere suggestion that we (collectively) should provide firearms safety for all our valued young people sends outrage through the “morally superior” sheep who would demand their children be victims of crime or ignorance.

It seems like the folks at Mr. Hoadley’s town-hall meeting are new to this funny little litigious society that we have here in the ol’ US of A. Gun owners, like all of those who live in this country, can be held criminally AND civilly liable for almost any action that hurts another person and/or damages property. On top of the fact that all of us are subject to lawsuit at almost any time for looking wrong at an easily-offended delicate flower, gun owners are subject to THOUSANDS of laws just to exercise their Constitutionally protected right. Regardless of the weight of law that can be brought to bear on those who act irresponsibly or criminally with a firearm, there are those who would levy more law on their neighbors and at the same time, demand “leniency” for the “misunderstood youth” who violently attack others.

If we think about the many things that we as humans must become proficient in our lives to survive to adulthood, the task list is quite daunting. The ability to raise children, drive cars, work for a living, identify things that can help us and things that can hurt us, the list continues almost forever. One of the most beautiful things about the idea of freedom, is the right to choose what we will or will not adhere to- even knowing the consequence of our actions could prove fatal.

An adult who understands that they could become proficient in the use of firearms, understands that some threats can only be dealt with through the judicious use of deadly force with a firearm, adhere to the rules and laws governing a responsibly armed citizen, teach others about firearms, carry a firearm in public safely, and use a firearm to defend innocent life yet chooses NOT to do any of these things is doing exactly what a free person has the right to do.

What we should be concerned with is the grown adult that makes the choice to disregard all of the above yet has dependents that would be defenseless without them. It is common place for some ignorant Americans who choose not to be educated about firearms to take that stance as “morally superior” to those who would bear arms to defend themselves and others.

What is a person saying who has children and knows that they could choose to properly defend their family but would have them all victims of violence because “guns are bad”? Why would supposedly competent Americans allow their loved ones to be defenseless against evil-doers that care nothing for law or life?

Ignorance about the lawful use of firearms is just fine as long as we work to correct our shortfalls with educations and experience. Wanton, intentional disregard for the safety of our loved ones should raise red flags with all sides of the aisle.

(http://monderno.com/monderno/taking…)

As mentioned previously, when anyone, especially a politician makes a call to have the rights of their countrymen restricted further, (completely against their oath of office mind you) we must assume that the decision falls into two categories: Intentional Action or Gross Ignorance.

The first time that I wrote regarding Mr. Hoadley’s actions as a political involved the town-hall meeting discussed in this editorial where a member of the MDFI alumni attempted to attend the meeting while lawfully armed (Church- Open carrying with CPL) and was asked to disarm after 12 minutes (It’s all recorded) in the building and after shaking Mr. Hoadleys hand.

In the write up, Mr. Hoadley actually stopped by to say a few words: (https://www.facebook.com/permalink….)

Politicians and those citizens who would have you disarmed (or have any rights taken from us) who are well aware that criminals don’t care about laws, ignore gun free zone signage, look for unarmed victims, and have other hidden agenda are the biggest threat that we have in today’s America.

“Representatives” like Feinstein and Pelosi that shout from the podium to have your firearms seized while surrounded by men and women with guns are quickly labeled as hypocritical but most don’t truly delve into the real threat to free thinking citizens everywhere- they continue to get elected.

In his article, Mr. Hoadley outlines several headlines from proposed “Common Sense” legislation that work ONLY to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to actually stop gun crime:

Common Sense Answer: Open Carry is not a loophole. Citizens have the right to be armed anywhere in public. Criminals, as outlined by every shooting in gun-free zones around the country could give a rat’s ass about your imaginary line legislation. Law abiding armed citizens are assets.

Common Sense Answer: Maybe not convenient for your article, but the alleged Kalamazoo shooter evidently (the investigation is still ongoing) passed not only a background check for his gun (Federal) but also a background check for his Uber employment (private). Please let me know how many more background checks you think will prove my point. (If only background checks were required for TSA…..I digress)

Common Sense Answer: When a judge issues a restraining order on a citizen, they take into account of the fact that they are removing constitutionally protected rights (firearms) from that person and they only do so under weight of evidence- as all Americans should expect under due process. Any attempt to make the removal of rights possible based on “hearsay,” or no evidence is criminal (and possible in California.)

Common Sense Answer: As a Constitutional Libertarian who values all citizen rights (Just like a politician should….you know, like the oath they took stated), private establishments should have the ability to govern their property however they like (Like the ability to have smoking in their bar without government overreach) but on public property, citizens’ rights trump the desires of those who disagree.

In closing on what should be a much longer discussion, we as responsible citizens must continue to get involved with our rights and engage those who would have them removed.

Our challenge, is sifting through the statements made by those who would have you disarmed through the stroke of a pen and at the muzzle of a gun to find out if their actions are that of someone in power without a clue, or a person bent on forcing agenda on their fellow man.

Mr. Hoadley stated, “We often hear that all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with one. Dalton was a good guy — until the moment he wasn’t.”

Then why, Mr. Hoadley, would you ask me to be anywhere with people you say are “ok” in a place where you have made me defenseless?

Food for thought.

– Trek, MDFI