Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

Sheriffs vs. Presidents

Sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control laws

It seems that more than 400 county sheriffs in the U.S. are declining to enforce their respective states’ new gun control legislation. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If you do, then do you have any problem with the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States (and the various and sundry federal law enforcement officers that report to them) declining to enforce certain laws in the United States, like immigration laws or assorted portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Essentially, there is no difference. If it is fine for the President to order federal agents and others charged with enforcing federal statutes to use their “prosecutorial discretion” and not deport people for violation of U.S. immigration laws or not to impose statutory punishments for not abiding by the dictates and deadlines of the PPACA (better known as Obamacare), then it would seem to me that it should just as appropriate for the the elected local sheriff to declare that whatever the latest gun control legislation calls for will not be enforce … or be subject to priority enforcement.

Are not the Sheriffs following the example of our President?

Now, I understand not prioritizing enforcement of some statutes because of the vagueness of the law, or its widespread disregard. Heck, speed limits are not strictly enforced in the United States (except in speed traps) and that is because 90 percent of the drivers in the US normally exceed the posted limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour all the time. Heck, I can even understand not enforcing a law if you know the law is unconstitutional.

However, I do have problems granting waivers for laws because they are inconvenient or because they might cause political problems for the law enforcement people.

So, those of you who have a problem with the stand being taken by the sheriffs, I sure hope you are consistent and have equally vehement objections to the failures, or refusals, or downright ignoring the law of the Obama Administration.

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

Another knee-jerk response to a tragedy

Once again, a much damaged person has perpetrated a tragedy.

I don’t know what caused a disturbed young man to dress up like a would-be warrior wannabe, take weapons from his divorced mother’s home, shoot her and then go to a school and slaughter more than 25 other people, most of them small children.

I don’t have that answer and I don’t claim to have the answer. Having said that, however, I am once again dismayed by the near-Pavlovian conditioned-response to this tragedy. (For those who are unfamiliar with the concept Pavlovian response, it refers to a Russian psychologist who trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell)

Liberals and progressives in the United States hear about such a tragedy and immediately the call goes up for the federal government to institute some new form of gun control (preferably, I think, banning all firearms) in almost a knee-jerk response to the incident.

I guess you could try to ban all firearms in the United States, but it wouldn’t work and probably would ignite a real civil war. First of all, there are far too many in circulation to be able to confiscate them all. Second, there are legitimate uses for civilians to have firearms (despite what city-folk may think). Third, firearms are far too simple to make to really effectively ban them.

So, as a practical matter, banning them is impossible.

Registering them, as our neighbor Canada has learned recently, basically becomes a rather expensive bureaucratic boondoggle and is easily evaded, if not ignored.

I guess you could try banning the sale of ammunition, but that too would easily be evaded and a black market created that would rival the illicit drug market. Gunpowder is relatively easy to mix up and the world is full of arms manufacturers willing to sell bullets to anybody.

The problem with gun control, in my humble opinion, is that it comes at the problem from the wrong angle.

It would seem obviously that the problem with guns is keeping them out of the hands of people who would use them for purposes that are not socially acceptable. How do you keep anything out of the hands of anybody who might use the thing for purposes other than socially acceptable?

Of course, to liberals and progressives, there are no socially acceptable uses for firearms, which is why they want to ban them. Unfortunately, as pointed out, that really is not an option and so to propose it merely obscures what can be done.

Now, first of all guns are inherently dangerous, but then so are cars, knives, saws, axes and just about anything else that can kill or injure human beings as well as other living creatures.

Second, guns usually are scary. They make loud noises that tend to startle and scare people, especially when you are not expecting to hear such a noise.

So, the problem is: How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them? I guess the same way you keep knives out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them or axes or even cars. What, you say, but that is impossible. Yes, it is and we shouldn’t delude ourselves that it is.

What should be done then? To be honest, I don’t have a politically correct answer for that. There is a totally politically incorrect organization in Nevada that is offering to train three adults at every school in the nation in the safe handling of firearms for defensive purposes. Not that that would ever happen, but it does offer an alternative solution that probably would be much more effective than trying to ban all firearms.

Unfortunately, there really is no way to stop people from doing this or any other terrorist-type act, especially if they intend to die in the end. You can drive yourself crazy trying to understand such people or why they choose to do what they do, but you will never understand.

Note that in China, there have been at least a half-dozen similar mass attacks on schools in the last two years.

Yet another example

Father accidently shoots son

This is yet another tragic case of failing to verify.

I add this to my collection of stories to tell when talking about handgun (actually all firearms) safety.

Never assume the weapon is unloaded just because you removed the magazine (assuming it is a magazine-fed weapon). There always can be a sneaker hiding back up in the chamber.

Check, double check, triple check and check again.

Please don’t take this as an argument for “gun control” unless you mean the necessity of the individual to maintain control of the firearm in his or her hand. Taking the right to keep and bear arms away from the people is a sure step to tyranny, which history has shown over and over again.

Pistol (actually all firearms) safety and idiots

Ex-West Pointer shoots self in head

It seems a former West Point cadet was showing off a pistol he had and accidently blew his brains out.

I can’t tell you how tragic that is, especially because as a former cadet at the U.S. Military Academy I would have thought that his firearms instructors would have taught him the first rule of firearms:

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS ASSUME IT IS LOADED!!!!!

Yes. If it is a magazine-fed weapon, like automatic pistols like my good old favorite the M-1911, you don’t assume that just because the magazine is out that there is no bullet in the chamber. WRONG ANSWER!

Look, I spent years around military pistols, primarily the M-1911A1 .45 caliber Army Colt Pistol. I have spent lord knows how many hours trying to teach people the safe handling of said weapons. One of the first things I always taught was to ensure when you picked up the weapon that not only was the magazine out but that the firing chamber was empty.

I used to say, “That is why God gave you a little finger, so you can it stick up through the ejection port into the breech to make sure there isn’t a cartridge hiding back up in there.”

I can still almost recite the standard lecture I would give each person.

“You pick up the M-1911 with your left hand (assuming you are right handed), keeping your fingers outside the trigger guard, and you drop the magazine by pushing this button with your finger and catch it in your right hand. Place the magazine down. Then with your right hand you pull the slide back until it locks. Then put your pinkie in the chamber – just to make sure there is not bullet hiding there. Now, the weapon is safe to handle.”

Next, I would explain that the .45 automatic had three safeties and a safety feature that they should be aware of.

First, it has the thumb safety that physically keeps the hammer from falling when it is in place.

Second, it has a grip safety that must be depressed by the web between your thumb and your fingers when you grip the handle. Don’t grip it tightly, then you won’t depress the safety.

Third, the .45 has a safety known as half-cock, which theoretically keeps the hammer from falling and if it does, it doesn’t hit the firing pin with enough force to hit the primer on the back of the cartridge. This is a throw-back to the old horse cavalry days when a trooper needed one hand on the reins and had to shoot his pistol with the other. This way he could have a charged round in the chamber (so he didn’t have to pull the slide back, which is a two-handed operation) and just had to cock the hammer and start firing. This is great if you are a cavalry trooper on a horse, but you aren’t, so don’t trust it.

Fourth, there is a safety feature on the .45 that supposedly will keep it from firing if the slide and the barrel are not fully forward. If they are not, then an “interlock” is supposed to keep the hammer from falling. This is why you never jam the barrel into somebody and expect to be able to pull the trigger. The force against the body shoves the barrel and slide back enough to engage the interlock.

At this point I usually would demonstrate using my hand. I would press the pistol against my palm, hard enough to shift the barrel back, and try to pull the trigger. Now, 99 percent of the time, the hammer wouldn’t fall.

Sometimes it would.

In that case I would thank myself for making sure the pistol was empty and explain why I said this feature was not a “safety” but a “safety feature” because it didn’t always work.

Unfortunately, I now know of several cases that individuals handling a pistol like the M-1911 either forgot or disregarded those instructions. Interestingly, it usually happens to officers (there must be a link there somewhere) in my experience. They are the ones who put the pistol to their temple and say “Watch, it won’t fall,” and then proceed to blow part of their skull and a good part of their brains all over the side of the nearest wall.

The reason I use my palm? Because my brain ain't there. If I blow a hole in my palm, I will survive. It may hurt like hell, but it won’t kill me.

People who put firearms to their heads should expect bad things to happen and my opinion of them is that they are idiots. They also are the subject of subsequent firearms safety classes as illustrations of what NOT to do.

I am sad the young man is dead. It truly is tragic. However, it has given me another teaching moment as I call them, and an opportunity to explain to anyone that reads my rambling random thoughts my main thought about firearms.

ALWAYS ASSUME THE DAMN THING IS LOADED and then make personally sure that it isn’t. Don’t accept someone else’s word. Check it yourself. Your damn life may depend on it.