Mixed Emotions and Schizophrenia

Lately, the concealed carry licensing laws have been bothering me again. They do not bother me for the same reasons they bother the anti-gun crowd. They bother me in that mandating who, how, and what weapon may be carried falls directly into the realm of "infringement."

On the other hand, licenses are usually issued to those people who are least likely to misuse firearms. The net result of this should be a greater acceptance of firearms and the licensing process. That has not happened.

There are many anti-gun groups that argue CHL holders are more likely to commit crimes. When the raw numbers are analyzed though, the "violations" are often how they are being carried. For example, the outline of a pistol is visible in someone's pants pocket and he is stopped police for failing to properly conceal it.

The purist in me would like to see carry laws done away with entirely. The realist in me knows that these licenses have provided some good. The Constitutionalist (is that a word?) in me believes them to be an obvious violation. The Constitutionalist in me also knows that people by-and-large do not wish to be part of a militia and that the legitimacy of militias needs to be upheld.

For the time being, I will just maintain the license and argue for it and against it and often with myself.

Cup Running Over

I am pleased to announce into this world my third kidlet.

She was born at 11:13 AM CST.
She is 21 inches and 9lbs 8.4ozs!

Both mom and baby are doing fine.

Starting Them Young

I dropped my youngest (outside the womb) at school to come back and find my oldest reading Pterry's Lords and Ladies.

Since Shakespeare is going to be a big part of our school curriculum for her in the next few years, I guess I should be glad she is reading it before A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I personally like Pterry's work. I even liked Men at Arms despite the "philosophical differences."

Still waiting on the youngest (inside the womb) to get on with it.

And remember, the turtle moves!

On Tenterhooks

I've not been writing much lately. My wife and I are anxiously awaiting our third. The actual ETA is Friday, of course, that is guaged by "more-or-less."

It seems so many women we know are saying, "Oh, I remember my third was two weeks past due!" or "It seems my third took forever." or "Our third was more than a month late!"

We have been asiduously slapping these women whenever we meet them but so far, that has not brought on labor.

Nor has anything else...

We're Standing On It

But we are still arguing where "there" is.

From our "friends" at GunGuys.com, I happened upon this article stating that fighting between the NRA and the Brady Campaign has made settling on a "middle ground" impossible.

My response to her, the writer of the article, is that we are already "on middle ground." What is constantly being debated is what constitues the middle ground. This is being argued at the same time that those who would completely abolish private gun ownership argue with those that would have VADSSPAAG's in the hands of individuals.

Her point is that those on the extremes are silencing those that are "in the middle." She then goes on to say thus:

What the two sides don't acknowledge is that reasonable people can oppose civilian ownership of machine guns or .50-caliber rifles so powerful they must be shot using a tripod while still supporting hunting and owning guns for self-defense. Americans can support background checks on guns sold everywhere – not just by licensed dealers – without putting gun companies out of business. The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.

That is what she is calling the "middle ground." She talks of reasonable people's opposition as if it were the same of the implementation of such. It is one matter to believe in something but entirely another to enforce those beliefs on others.

Here is where we "are" at the moment:

Individuals may legally own machine guns only with the strictest of licensing and checks from both federal and state governments.

Most .50 caliber rifles are fired using bipods. They are currently banned in many places around the country. I do not agree with the bans but they still remain.

Even owning guns for hunting and self-defense is severely curtailed if not outlawed in many parts of the country. Her "middle ground" is sliding away in Chicago, San Francisco, Washington D.C. et.al.

I do not know of any who are arguing that background checks are putting gun companies out of business. She may be confusing this with background checks at gun shows which for the most part (perhaps all now) are done. She may also be confusing it with an individual selling a firearm to another. In any case, the statement seems to be a red herring in her thesis.

Her statement regarding the registration of firearms removes her from her ideallic "middle." Has any country in the history of the planet that required registration of firearms not used those records to disarm, at least in part, their populations? For many that also consider themselves in the middle - I do not include myself in this group - this is a basic human right that may not be granted, licensed, or tested any more than the right of them to speak their minds at the town hall. The thought that ownership and usage of firearms may be licensed yeilds to the understanding that the license may be revoked.

Lastly, while this may be a statement about "how" something is accomplished rather than "what" or "why" as the rest of her paper reads, she is sorely incorrect in the statement. Even if we assume that licensing and testing would not be used as tools for restricting otherwise qualified people from owning firearms, implementing them in a manner that is convenient or easy would not be.

Consider any place where this is already required, and see if convenient or easy. It is often not. Usually, it is impossible.

It may be also necessary to consider the relative terms of "the middle." She may see herself as standing in the middle, as a even moderate. Others on the far right of the gun debate may see her as a shill for "gun grabbers" while those on the left may see her as an impediment to ending "gun violence."

Given her statements, and being as objective as I can, I see her as being left of center. To her the middle ground is one of great compromise around her beliefs where everone should be able to come to a consensus.

To me, her beliefs are left-of-center and the preamble for disastrous arms rights.

911 or 1911?

The good ole cell phone vs. handgun debate was discussed a few weeks ago. This was when I was back in Seattle (of course).

There seem to never be any "reasonable" arguements against people owning firearms but this particular person was far beyond reason. One of his that even my own mother has used was, "I would rather have a cell phone."

My response to my mother was, "You can have both. One does not preclude you from having the other." I then talked about the response times and the "what if" scenarios like being outside of cell phone coverage.

The last few days though, I have given more thought to this. The idea of having a cell phone as my first line of "defense" has been bothering me. Not only for the absurdity of the idea that it can stop a violent miscreant, but it also bothers me for a few other reasons.

I do not call my parents when I need money. In slim times, they have offered and I have accepted but I would not call them. I do not call my neighbors when my pantry is empty. I go to the grocery store to stock my pantry myself. Why should I call someone when those who I hold most dear are in danger?

I realize that the analogy is not exactly tantamount. It does however illustrate the way I feel about it though. I am as self-sufficient as I can be. I stock emergency provisions and prepare for "mild disasters."

During hurricanes Bertha and Fran, I lived in North Carolina near the coast. We lost power and were on stored water for a while. I took care of my family and then helped those around me. I was on active duty at the time and in base housing. Many of the men around me had to take the aircraft further inland during the hurricanes. (I was not flight crew so could remain on base.)

We took care of ourselves and each other. There was a very strong community there. By the time the base got around to cleaning up the debris in base housing - which was very low priority - most of it was already gone or cleared to a common area for easy removal.

To my knowledge, nobody in base housing needed emergency services except for the removal of the odd tree through the odd roof. Those whose houses were damaged were immediately taken in to the houses of others.

Dangerous situations in my house or around my car - or anywhere for that matter - will likely be resolved to some end by the time the police arrive.

While I view the policemen around me as just as much my community, I still strive to take care of my family first.

I will try following the logic of the "cell phone only" group for a minute though...

A cell phone will allow someone to call police who are trained in handling dangerous situations. Should they arrive on the scene before the situation has been resolved, they will likely have drawn their own firearms to protect themselves and others. If necessary, they will shoot anyone who is an immediate threat and who cannot likely be stopped by any other means.

In other words, the police may have to kill someone else to protect you.

That is a lot to ask of someone. I realize that it is part of their duty. If ever in a dangerous situation, I hope it would not come to that. If it does, I think that I would be bothered by asking someone else, even a policeman, for protection.

I should add that as part of our Emergency Action Plan for home intruders, both 911 and the 1911 are involved.

Abrupt Lane Something-or-Other

I have been hearing a lot lately about police abusing the authority entrusted to them. Among other things, I have heard that law enforcement, specifically police work, attracts a certain type of "macho man" - or at least more than their fair share.

My experience has been different. Just about every run-in I have ever had with the law was pleasant. Even in London, where I hear they are now tantamount to the neighborhood bully, they were polite and helpful. They also carried Glocks. Is that normal? I thought they only carried clubs.

I've never been ticketed unless I was speeding and never "threatened" with punishments for other infractions - save one.

Even when I was 16-19, I was stopped many times (on average every other week or so) in profile checks. This was little more than a nuisance. I realize that kids my age were often causing problems. However, I never recall being bullied or patronized.

The one exception was when a police officer told me he could arrest me for a knife that I had. The knife (USMC Kabar) was part of my field gear and was sitting "out" (sheathed and strapped to my deuce gear) in the back of my truck. He then tossed the knife in the back of truck. Upset, I yelled something at him about respect for the property of others and respect for the weapons of a U.S. Marine. I am sure it was barely coherent and more likely sounded like babble but the point was made.

He said that he was "sorry" and I got into my truck and left him standing in the parking lot. I thought as I drove away from there that was a bit surreal. I also wondered if I was going to meet any of his "friends" as I continued down the road. I did not.

The sad part about that was a nearly identical situation happened to one of my Marines. While I was just in the same parking lot as the office, this Marine was stopped for speeding. It was a different town and, by the description, a different officer. It was not a drill weekend but he had his gear in the cab of his truck. The officer noticed his knife and, according to him, threw it into the bed with the same statement, "I could arrest you for this."

The officers had to be different men, not only because the two incidents took place 40 miles from each other but, in order to see into the cab of friend's truck, he would have to be much taller than the officer who happened upon me in the parking lot.

I suppose that even the machismo of anyone can be shattered given the right circumstances. For some it may be having pictures of them wearing womens' underwear posted on the internet. For others, it may involve being chastized when they least expect it. One that I think may apply to everyone - at least apply to everyone in those situations where machismo and work meet - is having his modus operandi thwarted. I have seen this happend with Marines many times.

However, today, despite the anecdotes to the point, I am writing about a single police officer and a particular incident that happened a few years ago.

I have sometimes seen police officers who have caught people speeding walk into the road, point at them, then point at the shoulder. While this seems a bit foolhardy, it also seems to save a lot of time and gas on the officer's behalf. The only times I have ever received speeding tickets, I was pulled over by an officer in a motor vehicle. I wondered what I would do if one tried to "stop" me using such means. It seems to me that if a police officer is going to give me a speeding ticket, he should at least take the effort to drive after me.

But even today, this has yet to happen. There may be a reason for it.

The Dallas North Tollway is currently scheduled to be opened all the way to U.S. 380 at the end of this month. A few years ago, when only the service roads, two lanes north and two lanes south with curbs, to it had been built but none of the land between the roads had been developed, visibility along the road was severely limited.

Because of the construction and changing terrain, the speed limits were in constant flux. This, coupled with the fact that everyone along the road drives at least 70 miles per hour anyway, makes for a "target rich environment" for officers looking to catch people speeding.

The side roads that were falling apart and soon to torn and paved as the tollway made for perfect spots to "hide" while waiting for speeders. Traffic at 6:00 P.M. was bumber to bumber speeders doing 70. I do not think that officers have "quotas" in Frisco but that was certainly the best place for one to "catch his limit." In doing so, they often did not excersize the necessary caution. Either that, or, for lack of a better word, were just a bit too macho.

I was driving north from work along the service road. I had a Chevy Tahoe in front of me, a Ford F-250 beside me, and a Chevy or GMC Suburban behind me. All of us were doing a solid 60 miles per hour.

I learned later that the speed limit had recently been reduced to 40. By habit, hurry, or reckless regard for the law, we were still doing 60.

My mind was not on the possibility of a speeding ticket. My conscious was paying little attention to anything save the vehicles around me and my sub-conscious to whatever flights of fancy that dwelt there at the time.

Suddenly, I saw the Tahoe in front of me swerve into the right lane, a police officer whose eyes were as big as plates directly in front of me, and that Ford F-250 - now inches from the Tahoe that had been in the lead - to my right. I swerved as close to the Ford as possible. I think he was as close to the curb as possible.

I missed the officer by what seemed like inches.

I looked in my rearview mirror to see him running out of the road and the Suburban smash what had been the officer's radar.

I looked again to seem him standing on the side of the road and the Suburban slowing down considerably. While I stop to assist in wrecks and I make sure that everyone is fine before leaving, my sympathies do not extend to a policeman's radar. I decided it best to continue to the house and let my heart slow down.

Funnily enough, I have not seen them walking into the road to "pull" people over to the shoulder for speeding since.

It is probably best not to live by analogy but I have since taken precaution in my own life not to stand in the way of on-coming traffic, whatever my own machismo tells me to do.