The Affordable Care Act: Some Thoughts

What is the ACA aka Obamacare?

Watch the video complement to this article.

We’ve all heard about the Affordable Care Act. Most people will know it as Obamacare.

Major media outlets are telling us it’s the best thing since sliced bread. But we know those talking heads are nothing more than sock puppets for the current administration. Political pundits, the opposition and doomsayers are telling us it’s another tax and is, of course, a harbinger of the apocalypse. Then again, those folks tend to think everything that happens is a sign of the end.




My opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all that. But where? How can we know? For one thing, the legislation is entirely too big (11,000 pages) to tackle in a single-sitting, quick read article. Anyone who wishes to read the full text of the act may do so. The PDF Compilation of the “Health Related” portions of the act is 974 pages. (I have not read all of this and I have no plan to do so.)

Let’s take a “Five W” approach and just look at some of the facts.
What is the Affordable Care Act? How about the official line: The following comes from Medicaid.gov.

The Affordable Care Act provides Americans with better health security by putting in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that will:

• Expand coverage,
• Hold insurance companies accountable,
• Lower health care costs,
• Guarantee more choice, and
• Enhance the quality of care for all Americans.

Who is affected? The above says “all Americans.”  And, the above list really sounds like a great idea. But let’s put some questions at the end of those bullets:

Expand coverage, for whom? And what exactly does that mean, anyway? The government offers the Healthcare.gov website to answer those questions. And we’re all aware of the problems associated with with the rollout of the website. The $394 million website doesn’t work. Oh, they’re working on it, they’ve dragged in experts from some of the biggest names in networking to get the site up and running properly. And, as a bonus, Obama became the first president to hold a press conference because his website was down. They’re also offering online live chat, phone and mail-in sign up.



Hold insurance companies accountable, to whom? Insurance companies are in business to make money. If they’re not held accountable by their customers, then they shouldn't be in business very long.  Having the government prop them up isn't the answer to poor customer service.

Lower health care costs, for whom? Here’s something interesting; I’ve done a lot of research on this subject and nowhere do I see reductions in the actual cost of healthcare. There will be those who want to argue the semantics of this statement, but it does say exactly that: Lower Health Care Costs. That’s not happening. Healthcare costs are growing and there’s nothing in the works to lower them. The ACA solution is to help people pay for insurance. That doesn’t do anything to actually lower the cost of care; only to reduce what some people will have to pay. And, logically, if the government is picking up the tab for lowered payments, then we all know where the money is coming from. We who work and pay taxes are picking up the bill. It’s really a no-brainer. No, it’s not socialized medicine. In my opinion, socialized medicine would be much better.


Guarantee more choice. Why does that even need a guarantee? Think about that… We’re being forced to buy insurance. Our choices are already limited.

Enhance the quality of care for all Americans. This is a fine example of political doublespeak to try to sell something.

When does all this happen? According to Wikipedia, which has a well-written article on the act, “The ACA includes numerous provisions that take effect between 2010 and 2020. Policies issued before 2010 are exempted by a grandfather clause from many of the changes to insurance standards, but they are affected by other provisions. Significant reforms are to take effect by January 1, 2014.” (See the listing here.)

(Yes, I know Wikipedia is often not considered a legitimate source for journalistic research. I say it depends on what you’re researching. In this case, Wikipedia had the most comprehensive, readable, understandable and concise article I could find. The Wikipedia article carries a slight leaning toward the Obama camp, but not so much it sickened me. The majority of articles out there tend to be grossly pro-ACA or vehemently anti-Obamacare.)

Why is this necessary? First, it does take care of some gaps in coverage, such as companies denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This is good. But was a complete overhaul of the U.S. healthcare establishment actually needed? When medical bills are the cause of nearly half the bankruptcy filings in the country? Yes. Is this the right way to go about it? No. Forcing people to buy insurance isn’t the solution. Socialized medicine would be a better solution. Please don’t misunderstand: My opinion is that a government-run healthcare system would be a fiscal disaster mired in bureaucratic quicksand and fraught with incompetence, cover-ups, scandals. (And I consider myself an optimist.) But it would still be better than forcing us to buy third-party insurance. While the British and Canadian models may have their problems, those populations, on the whole, have better healthcare than we do in the U.S.

Where does this end? In more deficit. And more government control of the lives of U. S. citizens. This video from Stormcloudsgathering takes a more fatalistic approach; but not necessarily an unrealistic view.



Is there a bottom line here? Nothing concrete. The Affordable Care Act will lower healthcare premium costs for some, increase it for others and generally make healthcare more available to the general population. That’s a good thing. In the bigger picture, however, the U.S. government says: You will have insurance, you will pay for it, and if you do not, we will fine you, garnish your wages or otherwise punish you for not doing things our way. The Affordable Care Act is about control. Like any legislation created by government: It only serves to take away rights and freedoms.

Re-Think 9/11

This is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHi_6hlUezM#t=734

Something Not Gloom and Doom

Afternoon Exercise: 2 Sept. 2013


I started with a good warm-up and stretch.
I jogged across the road and took a dozen swings.

































Then I went for a walk/jog along the trails behind the house.




Beside one of the paths, I ran into this big girl straight out of my worst nightmares.

I tried several takes at getting a close up of a bee on a flower in one of the fields, but couldn't seem to get the focus right. Moving on, I was hoping to see some other creatures, besides Shelob up there. Nash stirred up a big red squirrel, but that guy was moving just way too fast for me to catch a shot. He high-tailed it up a hickory and was out of sight before I could even get the camera turned on.

Further down the trail, I found muskadines ripening on the vine, some of them nearly ready; some not so much. And some intermixed with green persimmons.






























Finally, I was left with this not-so-gentle reminder of just who's running things around here...

The Soup Sandwich

By John P. Smith

I’ve been watching a lot of conspiracy videos, reading forums and news feeds lately. And accessing other, more informative, types of news. I rarely watch the cable or network channels -- that’s not news.  Discerning what is real and what is bullshit can be a problem.

 

I have no doubt that there’s some hinky stuff going down in the world.  Weird shit is happening all over.  From what I have gathered, most of the conspiracy theories are based on information without solid context.  Perhaps based on the truth, but not all the truth; in many cases, we just don’t have the missing link that ties it all together into a giant world government meat grinder sucking us toward inevitable global enslavement.  Not yet; not anyway.  Maybe it’s out there.

 

I try to keep in mind that I’m researching.  I’m not looking for a needle in a haystack; I want to know everything that haystack is made of...needles, pins, bullshit, cowshit, horseshit, hay, grass, weeds, vines, briars, sticks, leaves, dirt, rocks, snakes, bugs, spiders, ants, and etc.

 

But remember, it’s the internet.  I can show you a quote on the internet by Abe Lincoln reminding you that anybody can (and anybody does) put out bullshit on the internet.  We use the term TMI often nowadays to indicate that someone is telling us more than we want to know.  That condition is also possible when researching and discovering what is available on the internet about what’s “REALLY” going on out there.  Look too much and suddenly it’s like having to put together a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle without seeing the picture.  It’s just not easy to get all the pieces in place to see the whole thing.

I also think that maybe we all want to see a global conspiracy come to light because of the even-more-frightening alternatives.

 

It could be that we’re hurtling willy nilly through space with no one at the helm.  That is kinda scary, in a way.  Or, humans aren’t in control at all.  There’s “evidence” to support that theory. The Nibiru theory holds some water with some science to back it up.  Literally hundreds of documents, photographs, photocopies, eye witnesses, recordings, etc., are out there to back up whatever theory needs support.

 

That being said, logic dictates that we consider another alternative: Our government, the governments of the world, are so blatantly incompetent they’ve dug themselves into a pit, using the tools of greed and selfishness, that now they can’t climb out even by standing on each other.  They’ve messed it up so bad, there’s no way it can be fixed.  They didn’t do it on purpose; that would require thinking ahead and considering consequences. No, it just turned out that way because they’re a bunch of stupid, selfish, greedy dickheads who also happen to be our bosses.

 

Do we believe in an all-encompassing conspiracy with diabolical, evil geniuses plotting to enslave us?  Or, do we believe that our planet is fucked up like a soup sandwich because the people running the show are just plain stupid?

Which do you choose?

The Drones in America

By John P. Smith

This drone thing: I'm seeing a lot of fear out in the world about how the big, bad, mean old government is going to start using Drone aircraft to spy on us. Really, there are much more effective and less intrusive ways the good old government is already spying on us. But, then again, we know the government is run by retards and they are likely believe that using Drones to search and destroy U.S. Citizens is a good idea.

First: Why the fear of Drones? My opinion: It's so impersonal. War, fighting, even spying, is a time-honored and glorious pass-time where one man versus another in some form. With drones, it's not so. There's a nerd in a bunker somewhere piloting a killing machine with nothing more at stake than a reprimand for losing an expensive aircraft if something goes terribly wrong...for him. For whomever he's tracking, it's all about life for death. Very impersonal. Then again, the navies of the world have had to deal with that since the invention of the submarine and guns that could fire over the horizon.

These Drones everyone is so afraid of? Built by the lowest bidder.

The U.S. infantry has some pretty good “common sense” rules about conflict.  One of those being the first rule of gunfights:  Have a gun.  Only slightly less well-known is the rule that if the enemy is in range, so are you.

So when the big mean government sends drones after you because you have the audacity to sell milk straight from the cow or some equally heinous crime, remember the two rules above.

If you’re armed, you can fight back.  If you’re a hard-core bootlegger of wholesome, healthy, non-government-certified, raw milk, and have finally raised the ire of Big Brother to the point where he’s sending drones down on you, destruction of government property will be the least of your worries.  

The point here: These drones are aircraft.  Granted, they’re small and fast, but they can be shot down with small arms.  They will fall out of the sky.  They can be armed with missiles or rockets, but they still have to get close enough to shoot at you.  When they do; you can shoot at them, too.  (This does have some drawbacks, as some drones can actually shoot at you from as far away as 5 miles.)

But those guys only get one shot.   And, they have to find you first. Odds are, you will not be alone. Keep in mind, also, that there are a lot more of us with guns than the government can ever build drones.  

The possibility of knocking the drone down without gunfire also exists: A directed Electromagnetic Pulse might just do the trick.  The drawback of that being, your electronics will likely stop working also.  And, surely somewhere on the internet, one can find and purchase a Stinger missile or two...

At least you’ll be fighting back.

If you are not armed; that’s a problem for you.  Your government won’t care.  Sure, you’re the victim of an attack and can be righteously indignant and very angry with your government.  Of course, that won’t do you a whole lot of good when you’re a bullet-riddled corpse in a two-bedroom farmhouse on a small plot of land with a couple of outbuildings, including the infamous dairy barn.

(The government will call it a “compound” and feed the media the grisly details of your standoff with the law and how the house accidentally caught fire and burned up, destroying any evidence that you and any friends died of anything but your own stupidity.  Then they will have it bulldozed and hauled off as soon as possible.  (Surely I’m not the only one who sees this pattern...))

An open letter to Government at all levels

By John P. Smith

To Our Retarded Government:

Be Afraid.

We’re buying every round of ammo that’s hitting the shelves, from .22 plinker to 12-Gauge shotgun. The suppliers aren't making any less.  We’re just buying it all.  You've forced our hands and now we’re making certain we’re ready.  We’re making certain than when we are forced to act -- and we will be forced -- then we’re prepared to give as good as we get.

Here’s some history for you to think on while we continue to stock our ammo cans:

You didn't win with the prohibition of booze. Instead, the government put millions of dollars into stifling and stopping the production, distribution and consumption of alcohol. Meanwhile, a vast underground, non-tax-paying black market flourished and grew.  Most of it, to no one’s surprise, in the hands of criminal cartels with ties to the mafia and other underground empires.  You should think about this as you consider the war on drugs.

Maybe you could learn from your mistakes; not have history repeat.  But you didn't do that.

You didn't win with hemp.  You’re almost there; but, you’re mostly just too stupid to know when to throw in the towel.  Seriously?  You’re so stupid and inefficient that you couldn't win a “war” on people who are, if propaganda is believed, lazy and unmotivated.  How could such a thing happen?  We understand you have billions of dollars invested in losing the war on drugs.  We understand you have thousands of people working to lose the war on drugs.  Why not just go ahead and lose the war on marijuana, save those billions of dollars on enforcement programs and take those thousands of government drug enforcement agents, who are presumably about to be left jobless, and have them start patrolling the border?  You know, the border? Where illegal aliens keep crossing into our country?

Now that you've had time to think about those two failures to stifle the American spirit, maybe you should reconsider your position on firearms.  You’re sure as hell not going to win where guns are concerned.  If you’re so unorganized and retarded that you can’t beat drunks, druggies and stoners, how do you actually expect to win a war on guns?

You should worry.

Down the Hill

Nature Walk: May 12, 2013.

By John P. Smith
Freelance Writer

I decided to photograph some of the wild, untamed beauty of our little mountain in the Ozarks. My Sony Alpha SLR was out on loan so I ended up taking my wife's little pocket Kodak Easy Share camera. Not exactly my first choice, but I'd made a plan and I stuck to it.

Before I got started good, I noticed the Himalaya berries starting to bloom. The plant makes some of the most evil thorns to be found, but they will also be making awesome berries around the end of July.

I set out with my day pack; enough to get me through a day in the rough. Briefly, my gear consisted of: food and water, a small blanket, first aid kit, rain ponchos, a few basic tools, a knife, Ruger LCP 380 with a pocket holster, camera, cell phone. As I left the house, my nephew, Terrance, 12, asked if he could go with me. He was driving a 4-wheeler. I was on foot carrying my pack. I said, “Sure. Meet me at the camp.”

Over the past year, I've established a primitive camp site about a kilometer north of the road, on the back side of our family property. The site has nothing spectacular to recommend it except that it sits just below the outlet of a mountain-top spring. The water is clear, cold and wonderful. Earlier this year, when I was back there with a chainsaw doing some clearing to improve the site, I removed the remains of large maple dead fall. Under it, I found another outlet from the source, probably 100 meters from the primary. This spring once ran year-round. With the lower-than-normal rainfall of the past years it has gone dry in the heart of the summer. Perhaps, with our higher rain amounts this season, the water level will be up enough to keep it running all year. I did not take a shot of the primary outlet because we've plugged it up and run a pipe out of it to a catch basin as an emergency water supply.

In that spring at the top of the hill, we found this little salamander: After having his photo taken, he was released back into the same water hole where he was discovered.

My plan was to be quiet, move slowly and try to photograph some of the larger animals: deer, armadillo, squirrel, birds of all kinds, snakes, lizards, frogs, etc. That turned out to be impossible. Terrance is full of energy, questions and opinions. Our little trek took about 3 hours from camp to Cove Creek at the bottom of the mountain and back up. During this entire adventure, Terrance never shut up. Even when we were climbing the kilometer-high, 45-degree slant back to the top of the mountain. Climbing back up, I worked my way from tree-to-tree, 10 meters at time, sweating profusely, doing my best not to have a heart attack. Terrance climbed the hill, slid and fell back down several times, stopped to check out a few old logs, fallen trees and funky rocks. All the while, he kept up a running dialog of subjects from the best dirt to find worms for fishing to the Curiosity Rover on Mars.

Also on the way down, we ran across an overhanging bluff just northeast of the spring.

Of course, I moved with deliberate caution, understanding that a broken ankle or dislocated knee would be more than just a painful experience while we were down in areas that can't be reached by 4-wheeler or horses. Terrance was a ball of energy moving from one amazing discovery to the next. Like this tree we found that he had to climb out on despite my warnings that, “If you break your leg, I'm not carrying you all the way to the top of that mountain.” To which he blithely responded, “I can hop on one foot.”

Here's me. (Holding on because those rocks were slicker than snot.)

Nash was hanging with us.

At the bottom is Cove Creek, or at least one of its northern branch tributaries. Here we discovered that the water is still really cold. Terrance figured that out by leaning off a ledge onto a tree in the middle of a small pool. “Hey, look at this. Get a picture of me leaning out over the water.” To which I replied, “I'll try to get it before that old tree breaks and you fall in.” I didn't make it. Terrance got wet. All he had to say about that was, “Stupid tree.” I tried not to laugh too much. 

Just up the creek from where Terrance took the plunge, we found this waterfall.

Below are some of the creatures and plants we saw during our exploration.  This is the end of this story, but not the end of the photos.

Terrapin!

This little girl was growing down by the bank all by herself. No others like her right where she was.

Found this area under a rocky overhang where the dirt daubers stay dry.

This feather washed up onto the shore.

This water spider was catching a few rays:

This guy was working hard to hide in the rocks.

While this guy sat in the water enjoying the sunlight. 

These inch worms were everywhere. (I'm trying to go all metric, but 2-centimeter worms just doesn't sound as descriptive as inch worm.)

Stop Shoving Your Agenda in my Face

Why do the NHL and the NFL have to come out with a policy supporting the gay athlete?  What’s the whole deal with having a policy in support of a specific lifestyle?

Here’s the whole problem I have with that: LGBTs make up an estimated 4-percent of the population (Wikipedia.)  Their problem with this LGBT society, as a whole, is that they don’t want to be treated differently than anybody else.  They just want to be accepted.  Enacting legislation, or a policy, to prove to the rest of us that an organization, club or team supports the LGBT’s right to be treated just like everyone else is oxymoronic from inception.

See, here’s the thing:  I don’t care whose penis you’re sucking; whose vagina you’re licking; what you’re wearing; or, who you’re doing of either sex.  I know it’s hard to believe.  But seriously; I don’t care.  Most people don’t give a rat’s ass what you do with your privates in private.  I’d say, and this is just my estimate based on my 50 years of interaction with the rest of the planet, but I’d say 90-percent of the people in this country could give less than one tiny turd of a crap about LGBTs and their private or public lives.  So here’s 4-percent of the people who keep shoving their junk in our faces, telling us we have to stop treating them differently.

Now, that still leaves about 6-percent of the population.  These would be the extreme, bible-pounding, judgmental, so-called Christians who truly and fully believe that gays, lesbians, bis and transgenders are a boatload of depraved, demon-possessed, hell spawn all of whom should be locked up, killed or deported -- if they can’t be converted.  I’m not even saying those people are wrong about their opinions -- as everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But if they claim to be Christians, then they’re doing it wrong.  Sure, most of this country is Christian, but not all Christians are as retarded as the Westboro Baptist Church.  If the WBC, and most of the country, were real bible readers, they’d know they are only to pass judgment on members of their own congregations and leave the rest up to Him. Unfortunately, for everyone, those kinds of people only adhere to the parts of the book that support their agendas, ignoring the rest. Imagine that.

That pretty much covers the whole population.  Sure there are fringe and splinter groups from all walks, but generally, that should sum it up.

Now, let’s recap:  4-percent wanting special treatment so they’re not treated differently; 6-percent wanting to banish them to hell; the rest of us not giving one tiny mouse poop about either group’s agenda, rather just wanting to be left the hell alone and stop being bombarded with super-spin propaganda and being told that if we don't agree with their lifestyle then we're bad people.

Did anybody catch that earlier?  I don’t care -- we don’t care -- what any LGBT is consensually doing to whomever may chose to have it done.  Let me restate that:  We do not care.  Now, please stop telling me that I have to. Because I don’t.  Really.  Don’t care.

Now, having said all that, I will now say this as succinctly, but as loudly, as I can:  STOP SHOVING YOUR JUNK IN MY FACE!

When They Come for My Guns

     (Author's note, February 2013: I wrote this about six weeks ago.  I did not put it out for public consumption because I'd recently applied for a concealed carry permit and didn't want to affect my consideration for approval.  However, the more I've thought about it, I feel like if I toe the line and not say what I believe so I can be "granted" a license by the government to carry a weapon, that makes me part of the problem.  I'd rather be part of the solution.  But our First and Second Amendment rights as a U.S. citizens are already so eroded and watered down that it may already be too late.)

By John P. Smith
Freelance Writer

     When they come for my guns; I’m saying no.

     According to an article in Forbes online, the United States has about 80 million documented gun owners and approximately 270 million guns.  That’s right: Probably one-third of all the guns on the planet are owned by private individuals in this country.  That’s documented gun owners.  Estimates of undocumented guns and owners vary depending on the source.  But that’s a lot of guns and owners.

     Making a rough estimate of undocumented gun owners at 20 million, we can say there are an estimated 100 million gun owners in this country.  The government fields and about 1.5 million active, 1.5 million reserve military members and 800,000 police officers.  Let’s just make that a nice round total of about 3 million people available to come to your house and ask for your guns. I round down because many of the military and police won’t ever leave their offices to try to take my guns.  In addition, some may not agree with the government policy and refuse to participate in a roundup of guns from citizens in clear violation of the Constitution they've sworn to protect.

     Remember:  Our military is not sworn to protect the government.  When we swear in, it is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That Constitution still affords us the right to bear arms.  Believe you me, the cowards lobbying for “gun control” and the government absolutely hate that.  And I believe that should it come down to it, we as citizens, have not only a right, but a responsibility to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  The right to own firearms is the Second amendment to he Constitution.  Second only to our right to free speech, press and religion.  Does it seem like the framers had a premonition that the Second would be necessary to ensure the First?  (A First which is rapidly deteriorating: Our government-run schools are now so retarded that a child can't point his finger and say "bang" without being suspended.)

     Rest assured, if we turn our guns over to the government, we will sooner, rather than later, be forced to comply to some kind of persecution when they’re the only ones who have weapons.  Once they have all the weapons, they can pretty much decide what they want us to do.  And when they say, “they’ll do it because we told them to,” they will be correct.  How many times do we have to see this happen before we will believe it?   If there’s anything we should have learned from the invention of the firearm, it is that those who have the guns, have the power.  Take a look at a hundred other governments around the world and see just who gets the short end of the stick when only the government can have guns.

     I found this on the internet while researching this article.  It makes some valid points. 

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

     For those who fear the coming of the soldiers or police to confiscate your firearms, the solution is simple:  Just say no.  We must take a stand.  Don’t be afraid.   I’m 49 years old.  As far as I’m concerned, that’s enough.  Imagine 100 years ago; 49 was an old man.  Every day I continue to live is a gift.

     So when they come for my weapons, I’m taking one of them with me.  That’s all.  At least one.  More if I can, but at least one.  Why?  Because if just one of every 100 gun owners believes as I do, the rest of you will get to keep your weapons because there won’t be anybody to take them away.  Do I feel bad for the poor enlisted puke I may have to kill to fulfill my part of this bargain?  Yes I do.  Afterall, I was once one of those enlisted grunts.  He’s just doing his job, as he’s ordered to do.  I don’t want to ever have to kill anybody.  However, on the other side of the coin is the question of exactly why he’s with them.  When any military person comes down on the side of the government and not the side of the Constitution, maybe he’s just another bad guy.

     What if they single us out?  For instance, if the government makes it impossible for gun owners to buy food?  Would our government starve our families because we refuse to give up our weapons?  Of course they will.   Will that work?  Only if we let it work.  I can’t imagine the government really wanting to deal with millions of hungry, angry people with guns.   We can take our weapons and march to where the food is and demand our share.  But, wouldn’t that be civil war?  Yep.  It sure would.  And let’s face it; nobody wants civil war.  Especially a government outnumbered 100 to 1.

     So the next logical step would be to threaten our families:  Do you really believe our government would hold our families hostage to force us to give up our weapons?  Damn right they would.  As in any war, sacrifices will have to be made.  You can count on your government using every dirty trick in the book to force compliance.  We will be starved, threatened, held hostage, have our utilities cut off, refused service by businesses, refused medical treatment and access to medicine, not only for us, but also for our families.  This sounds somewhat fatalistic, but let’s face it, any or all of it can happen.  And when the time comes, it will happen.  

    Still, if the government actually tries to take our firearms, they really can’t do it unless we let them.  Once we’ve killed a million of them and they’ve killed a million of us, you can bet those tasked with the job of picking up our guns will have noticed that the odds really aren’t in their favor, seeing how one-third of them is already dead and the population still has 200 million weapons.

    Seriously.  Think about it.  There’s no way in hell the government can take our weapons if we decide they don’t have the right -- which they don’t.  The key is, we have to decide not to let them and we have to decide right now.   Let the gun control lobby whine about how awful and evil and criminal guns are; these people are such cowards, they can’t see beyond their own fear.  I say let them blubber and snivel from their hiding places. Let them cower in fear and hatred of those of us who are not afraid. 

     I reiterate: If we don’t want to give up our guns, we don’t have to.  We have to take a stand.  When my time comes, I will take a stand.  I will say, “No, you may not have my weapons.”  And then I will do whatever becomes necessary to back up my conviction.  And undoubtedly, I will lose.  I will lose one small battle.  But every time someone else takes a stand and fights back, we will all be one step closer to winning the war. 

     When your time comes; take a stand.   It’s a small price to pay for our children to live in a country where the government fears the people rather than the other way around.

Guns and Games: Some Thoughts

By John P. Smith

Freelance Writer

I recently read an article on guns and video games on the internet. This article.  (And for those who don’t take a well-written article by Cracked.com seriously, study their user demographic and web hit statistics and get back to me.)  I actually agree with some of the things the author said:  If modern video games are contributing to the mental deterioration of those who would perpetrate an act of violence such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, then we, as gamers, are part of the problem. We, then,  need to find out how we're part of the problem, stop being part of it and start being part of the solution.

Of course, the major target of the government and our never-ending supply of cowardly liberals is gun control.  I’ve written a separate article about that.

As for video games, the first step in finding out how we're part of the problem is research.  This association to video games remains, at this point,  nothing more than marketing spin, hearsay and modern accusations of witchcraft.  The terrible people who killed dozens of people played these games.  While that may be true, it actually explains nothing.  These awful people probably also watched reruns Friends every day and FOX News every night.  What does that tell you?  Nothing.  We know nothing of the relationship between violent games and homicidal, suicidal sociopathic idiots.

Once we understand our contribution to the overall problem, then we can start working on it.  And no, this is not a stall tactic.  When your car stops because you've run out of fuel, there's no point in raising the hood and jiggling crap around when you know the problem is under the trunk.  If you don't know why the car stopped, mucking about under the hood is as likely to make things worse as it is to help.  That's what the government is doing right now; mucking about looking for a solution when they don't understand the basic problem.  So, while they know nothing of the root cause of the problem, they at least, by damn, appear to be doing something.  That is, of course, making a spurious connection to a fairly recent phenomena: video games.

If there is a connection, as is pointed out by Robert Brockway’s article on Cracked.com, then it is our responsibility as gamers to defend our chosen pass-time.  The video game industry and gamers cannot, and should not, bear the brunt of the blame for attacks that amount to individual acts of terrorism.

At the same time, if video games, violent or otherwise, contribute any at all to pushing a mind to the point where it would snap and compel an individual to take the lives of innocent moviegoers or elementary school children, then it’s also our responsibility -- our duty in fact -- to do whatever we can to fix it.  As a recovering alcoholic, I can tell you from experience that denial will not make the problem go away.  And in many ways, what we're seeing here is denial.  Mr. Brockway has some interesting, and in my opinion viable, suggestions on how to begin.

I suggest we begin with education.  As a martial artist trained with sticks (combat cane), staves (bo staff), my bare hands (jujitsu), and a gun owner professionally trained on care and use of firearms (8 years military service, concealed carry,) I can tell you that the common thread between all these potentially violent activities is education and understanding.  In all my years of training, the one thing that has always been of paramount importance is that violence is never the desired outcome of any confrontation, it does not by itself solve problems and, as such, should always be the last option.

What educational options do we offer that teach the consequences of violence?

And, at what point did we become unable to defend our selves?