Before you ask to ban them, you should at least take a moment to learn something about them...

A good friend posted a link to Jason Alexander's essay regarding prohibiting "assault style weapons".

I fear for the sanity of any person who isn't absolutely shocked and appalled at events like the Colorado theatre shootings, the Columbine shootings, the Virginia Tech shootings, etc.

If I believed that gun violence would disappear tomorrow by giving up my guns they'd be gone in an instant.  What I fear, however, is that laws that impact only the law-abiding will not take guns out of the hands of the crazies and criminals.  It isn't my law-abiding neighbor's guns that are the problem.  It's the guns in the hands of a diagnosed mental patient (like the Va Tech shooter) that are the problem.

That having been said, Jason Alexander and everybody who wants to get rid of guns has noble motives in my opinion.  We all abhor violence.  Nobody wants to see innocent people harmed.  However, his essay appears to be based on facts that are either completely untrue, or which are only partially true.

This is the link to his essay:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/

Here is where I take exception:

His quote:  "Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands."


First, even if one person died, that's one person too many, and all people, gun-owners and non-owners alike should work to try and make sure that we are all safe in our homes.


That having been said, Jason's statistics are a bit off.  There are roughly 30,000 gun-related deaths every year.  The majority of those are suicides.  Now, I'm not saying that I think suicide is okay.  What I'm saying, however, is that suicide is a mental-health issue, not a gun issue.  


That still leaves over 10,000 gun-fatalities a year.  Not all of them are due to assault-style weapons.   In fact a large percentage are handgun-related fatalities.  10,000 is too many, to be sure.  Hey, let's figure out ways to reduce those fatalities.  I completely agree.  But let's also keep this in proportion.  Cars are getting safer every year, but we still have 30,000 fatalities on the roadways every year.  If we really wanted to save lives, maybe we should think about getting rid of guns AND cars.

Now, let's revisit the last part of that statement:  "...these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands."

It's difficult to find a statement that could be farther from the truth.  Let's take a step back for just a moment. The military weapon that was used for four decades was not the AR-15.  it was the M-16.  The M-16 had features such as fully-automatic mode and burst-mode (where multiple bullets were fired with one trigger pull.)  The AR-15 is the civilian version of the weapon and is basically a non-automatic weapon.  So, gun-owners and gun-rights advocates do see value in limiting ownership of certain types of weapons.

It just so happens that we don't agree that gun X, which fires one bullet with every trigger pull, is far more dangerous and deadly than gun Y, which fires one bullet with every trigger pull.

Now for the constitutionality question:

"...constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. "


Actually, no, that isn't what it says.  We'll clearly need a tie-breaker here because some folks think that IS what it says and others don't agree.  Jason then goes on to quote the second amendment:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There has been much debate over this subject for half a century.  Gun-rights proponents always said that this is a right invested in THE PEOPLE.  Gun opponents said that it only applied to members of a militia.

The reality is that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, other than the 10th amendment, spell out INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that could not be taken away by the state.  The state is what controls the militia.  So, granting a power to the state in the bill of rights would have been contrary to the entire purpose of the bill of rights.

Also, although the second amendment spells out a reason for this right (because we want a competent militia), the right is clearly a right that belongs to "the people."

Says who?  Other than the plain-text of the constitution, the Supreme Court says so.  They are the tie breaker on all issues of constitutionality.  They are the guys who get to decide this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

So, we've got a half-truth (exaggerated fatalities) and an outright falsehood (that the 2nd amendment only protects gun-ownership rights within a militia.)

Now for the really boring stuff, the technical details of weapons such as, say, the AR-15.

"What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality."

Let's take his questions one at a time:

"Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. "

No, it does not.  It can fire exactly one round without being reloaded.  However, it can accomodate a magazine of up to 30 rounds.  So can a rifle like a Ruger Mini-14.  Do we want to limit magazine capacity?  This is a reasonable debate.  So, let's chalk this one up to a half-truth.  An AR-15 is capable of employing a very large (30 rounds, sometimes more) magazine, however, non-assault-style weapons can also accomodate magazines of that capacity as well.  

"Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes."

This is where lack of knowledge about firearms really starts to show through.  It does not fire farther and more accurately.  It fires with a shorter range and less accuracy than a common hunting rifle like a Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70.

Here are some stats:  

AR-15 effective range - 400 to 600 meters, give or take.

Winchester Model 70 or Remington 700 in 30-06?  Up to 1,000 meters.  

So, the idea that an AR-15 has better range than a typical hunting rifle is absolutely wrong.

"Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes."

Again, dead wrong.  An AR-15 comes in .223 caliber.  This is a very small caliber weapon with not much stopping power.  You would not use this to hunt large animals and many folks would say it would be unwise to try and shoot a deer with it.  Can it kill people?  Yes, but not because of a more lethal payload.  This is actually a very small caliber weapon.  It has a less lethal payload than most hunting rifles. 

"So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality."

Well... first, it's difficult for anybody to come up with a working definition of an "assault style weapon".  The Clinton administration banned, them, but it banned them based on characteristics like having a pistol grip, which does not make a weapon either more or less lethal.  It banned them because of bayonet lugs, as though drive-by pokings were a national scourge.  Pretty much all the things that made a weapon an "assault rifle" were cosmetic, not functional.

I don't think we'll be able to make ourselves safer by outlawing scary-looking guns.

I have a disagreement of viewpoint with Jason Alexander.  I'm sure he cries himself to sleep on his mattress of money because of it.  However, it doesn't mean that I think he's a bad person, or is out to harm people's rights, or has motivations to do damage to law-abiding citizens.

He's a person who is heartsick and disgusted at the actions of one crazy person who killed a whole lot of people who didn't need to be killed.  

I agree that something has to be done.  However, I just don't see that another assault-weapons ban will matter.  The last one we passed really didn't impact crime at all.  I don't see the next one having any more luck.

"In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless."

And right back at ya, Jason.  Let's solve this issue by attacking the causes.  In this case, it was a crazy guy bent on murder.  The biggest act of domestic terrorism, ever, took place by a guy with a truckload of fertilizer.  The reality is, you simply can't take away every tool that a person like this could use.  Though you don't appear to agree, it may have been possible for a few people with concealed carry permits to have had a positive impact on this situation.  Yeah, the guy had kevlar... however, being shot while wearing kevlar is no picnic.  Maybe a few more people could have escaped.  Maybe a bullet could have found a vulnerable area.  It wasn't the gun, Jason.  Thank god he didn't think to buy fertilizer or everybody in the theatre would have been killed.

Logan's First Concert

Yesterday was a pretty big day for the little guy.  Started with a birthday party at the local public pool.  This has always been an easy party to throw.  Admission to the pool is cheap (only $2.50 per kid), and they have a little covered picnic pavillion in a park next to the pool.  So, I set up refreshments, etc., in the park, turn the kids loose in the pool and they come in and out and eat cake, pizza, whatever.  Don't have to clean the house before or after and the kids always have a blast.

After that, I took the dry ice I'd used to keep the ice cream cold and used it to teach a little bit of science.  Carbon Dioxide is a gas, but can freeze into a solid.  It is heavier than air, which is mostly nitrogen, etc.  Mostly, Logan just liked putting it in water and watching what it did.  I'm trying to introduce him to the idea that science is fun.

After that, thanks to a very generous friend who is a concert promoter, we saw a concert with 1964, the Beatles tribute band.  This is the 2nd time I've seen them.  Their act is always amazingly spot-on.  I often find myself wondering if their show is tighter than the Beatles live shows were back in the 1960s.  They have the benefit of better equipment and monitors.  Plus, they've been playing the same music for 28 years.  Though, the Beatles went through their Kiserkeller phase and got to where they had serious chops, too.  So, hard to say on that one.

I will say that I can't imagine a band sounding more like the early Beatles.  The Fab Faux do a great job with late Beatles stuff, but they don't try to look like the Beatles.  With 1964, it doesn't take much to feel like you're watching the real thing.

We got to go backstage and meet "John" and "Paul".  They were not in character.  So, they didn't have their northern England accents.  The bass player is new.  (So new that he's not on the 1964 web-site, yet.)  They were super friendly and Logan got his pic with both of them. Paul was very nice.  He's a young guy and does look a tad like Paul.  He was very nice when he heard that Logan is an aspiring bass player.  They talked about their instruments a little bit.  Then, they were off to do their show!

The concert venue is close to my home.  (30 minute walk.)  So, Logan and I got to spend some nice time walking to and from.  All in all, it was a great day he's not likely to forget anytime soon.

Here's What's Going On

Okay, I'm slowly accepting that I won't be going back to school in the Fall.  Will I ever go back?  Hard to tell at this point.  I'm honestly not sure.

I have accepted a job with the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB, near Dayton, OH.  The position is "contract negotiator".  I've been interested in this job for years and tried to pursue it in the Navy.  Literally, just a few months before I finished my requirements for my defense aquisition certification, the Navy changed up the rules and basically made it impossible for me to get it as a reservist.

To qualify for this training program, you need to either have a JD or an MBA.  I've had the MBA for a while, now, and when they came on-campus to interview, I got my appointment because I was studying for a JD.

This was actually pretty high on my list of jobs I'd like to pursue after graduation.  So, getting it without finishing the last 2 years of the JD is a good deal for me.

I'm really looking forward to this.  If things work out, then I will probably retire from this job.  If not, I may be back in school.  Who knows. 

Now, there is one downside to the job:  it's in Dayton, which is a good 3 hours from my house.  I still have Logan every other night and this will mean hauling butt out of there.  I hope I can use flex hours and telecommuting, but won't know all the details about that until I'm actually working there. 

The upsides are plenty.  It's a federal government job with benefits and holidays and all the other stuff you get with a federal government job.  The vacation policy is pretty good.  They actually give you paid time off during the week so you can work out.  Military bases are very fitness conscious.  It'll be nice to get back into a fitness routine after all these years of being out of any fitness routine.


Mostly I feel fortunate that an organization was willing to take a chance on a trainee in his mid-40s.  Plus, the Air Force is a great organization.  I always looked at it with a mix of jealousy and envy when I served in other branches. 


So, provided it's everything I hoped it would be, plus provided they are happy with me as an employee, the only real hassle will be driving back and forth.  Obviously, on days Tessa has Logan, I'll be able to stay down there.

I thought about trying to get an apartment, then maybe just renting a room.  However, until I'm sure I'll be there for good, I don't feel comfortable signing any leases.  I will probably just pray that priceline gives me a merciful price at a hotel. 

My days as an entrepreneur are done, though.  It has been nonstop bad news for three years, now.  Having my own business was awesome in a lot of ways, and I may do it again sometime in life, but for the time being, I'm gonna be pretty darned happy to see that paycheck get direct deposited every two weeks.

And a final funny note:  once I draw a paycheck from this job, I'll have drawn a paycheck for all the three major defense departments.  I was active-duty enlisted in the Army.  I was an officer as a reservist in the Navy.  And now, I'll be a DOD civilian working for the Air Force.  (The Marines are under the department of the Navy.)

August Plans

It's already July, which sorta means I should come up with a plan for what I will be doing in August.  There are basically two possible ways this could go.  I got a tentative job offer for a position in Dayton.  However, things have progressed slowly with the offer. 

It's a great job.  I only wish I'd started with these guys sooner.  However, they have yet to give me a definite job offer.  Is it possible that a job offer won't materialize?  Yes, very possible. 

I can either start this job or go back to school in the Fall.  Either one is okay with me.  The only thing that would not be okay would be to neither start the job nor go back to school. 

Going back to school, which a few months ago seemed like an impossibility, is now actually very feasible to do. 

Between the two, I vacillate, but am starting to think that maybe finishing law school wouldn't be the worst idea.

First, it gives me two more years with my son.  Again, everything in my life is geared towards trying to be as big a part of his life as possible for the next seven years.  So, this gets me 2/7 of the way there.

Second, although Toledo is about as bad a market as there is for legal jobs, it is possible to earn a living as an attorney, here.  It can be done.  Hell, my divorce attorney is one rich mofo. 

Third, although the job is about as perfect as a job can be, there really isn't anything that compares to the earnings potential of being a highly compensated professional or small businessperson.  Yeah, you can also earn zero, a reality that I'm painfully aware of.  However, you can also earn a good deal if you do well.

So, although the job is a great, safe, steady path, it is possible to do better, financially, by pursuing a career in the law.

Another intangible is that I really would like to finish law school.  I have thought about this for about as far back as I can remember.

I did send a little query to the job folks in Dayton to ask if they were sure this was going to happen.  I'll give this a few weeks, but if I don't hear something concrete, I may need to pull up oars and plan on returning to law school in the Fall.

Honestly, at this point, I'd be happy with either outcome, but can't afford to not-do either one or the other next month.

Why I Can't Be a Republican Anymore...

Keep in mind that I came of age in the late 70s and early 80s.  The democrats had been having their way for a long, long, long time.  When that happens, a party's good ideas were implemented a long time ago.  What's left on their "to do" list is usually some pretty extreme stuff.

Too much of almost anything is bad.  For instance, affirmative action?  When it is used to make sure that everybody has opportunity, regardless of race, it is an unadulterated good in the world.  When it is used to deny admission to Asian people, because otherwise there'd be too many of them, it is bad.  (This was done at many prestigious California schools and is still being done today.)

No party has a monopoly on good ideas.  Show me a person who is 100% democrat or 100% republican, and I'll show you a person who really hasn't devoted any thought to the issues.  I'll show you a person who has simply chosen a tribe, dogmatically, and is voting on emotion, not logic.

When the Republicans came into the fore in the 80s, they were a party of ideas.  They were refreshing after too many years where unions (a good thing) were protecting incompetent workers (a bad thing.)  They were refreshing after too many years where a proliferation of government programs (generally a good thing) were making it impossible to balance the budget without massive taxation (a bad thing.)

So, they talked a good game and they gradually gained power.  It's hard to imagine, but prior to the mid 90s, most people thought of Republican control of the House of Representatives as an absolute impossibility.  The Republicans, themselves, had resigned themselves to the role of the loyal opposition, but really didn't ever make designs on being able to control government.

In the 90s, though, all that changed.  Bill Clinton survived by virtue of a bad economy in '92 and a great economy in '96.  Other than that, the Republicans ruled the roost.

In 2000, they took over the House, Senate and Oval Office.  They were fully in charge.

What did they do?  The first thing I noticed was they overhauled the bankruptcy laws in what was a very, very obvious favor to banks at the expense of people who were struggling so badly, the best they could do was simply give up.  To this day, student-loan debt is non-dischargeable, and anybody with an above-average income probably can't file Chapter 7. 

In addition, the Republicans lowered taxes, but ballooned the deficit.  I generally support lower taxes, but not at the expense of saddling my son and future generations with an onerous tax burden.

The breaking point for me came in 2008, when the Republican President and his Treasury Secretary decided to bail out Wall Street.

Free market capitalism is something I firmly believed in, despite the pain it sometimes causes people.  The republican house and senate supported the bailouts (to a slightly smaller degree than the democrats did, but they still supported it.)

Which pretty much filled out my report card on my party. 

1.  Fiscal conservatism meant nothing.
2.  Lower taxes meant everything.
3.  Big, wealthy constituencies like the banks were to be favored over working people, even those working people who were on such hard times that they were bankrupt.
4.  The free markets were insignificant.

I can't say that I'm happy with the Democrats, either.  When given their chance, they screw over the little guy in favor of monied interests just as much as the Republicans do.  When our current president took power, he continued the free-ride that Wall Street got under Bush so he could focus on health care.  Then, when he implemented health-care, he cut backroom sweetheart deals with the very monied interest that have been bankrupting us.

It's just that I can't support the Republicans anymore.  They can not possibly claim, with a straight face, that they are a party of fiscal conservatism.  Even the current presidential nominee thinks the Wall Street bailouts were a great idea.  So, Republicans can't possibly claim that they support free enterprise.  What they support, more accurately, is crony capitalism.

Their reform of the tax code, roughly a decade ago, has produced a ridiculous monster that asks too little of the wealthy and essentially made your 1040 a wealth-redistribution tool through refundable tax credits.

At times, it was hard to know what, exactly, the Democrats stood for.

However, today, I honestly don't know what Republicans stand for.  The only things they appear to stand for are social conservatism and lower taxes.

Taxes that are too low on the wealthy is one of the problems creating our current deficit, though.  Irresponsibility is not fiscal conservatism, no matter how you love low taxes.  Given their love of profligage spending in the Bush years, I can't take them seriously on the isssue of fiscal discipline.

So, we have a party that's socially conservative, and fiscally irresponsible.  I, personally, am socially progressive and fiscally conservative. 

The Republicans have managed to be the 180 degree polar opposite of what I am and what I want.  In addition, there's a cavalier air of cruelty towards those who are struggling in the current economy. 

Will this make me a Democrat?  I doubt it.  I find Democrats to generally be better-intentioned than Republicans, especially on issues that impact the little guy.  The thing is, the Democrats haven't been able to get their act together ever since I graduated High School.  The current health-care reform, which does nothing to even slow down the rate at which medical costs will bankrupt us, is typical of what you get from Democrats:  bills that do a little bit of good, that help a small minority of people tremendously, but which ignore reality and ultimately will cause a train wreck.

So, I don't know which direction, politically, I'll be going.  It's as though I have to chose between a party that's evil and a party that's wholly incompetent.  For the first time in my life, I've become cynical.  I am starting to believe in my bones that no matter who we elect, they'll do all they can to screw us over for the benefit of the wealthy.