These are the people Obama DIDN'T trot out when discussing gun violence.

If you want to make a political point, there's no better way to do so than by parading victims in front of the cameras. At least that's what Obama thought tonight during the "annual reading of the TelePrompter". Parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting were trotted out to elicit sympathy for the President's gun control plans. While everyone sympathizes with the grieving families, this sort of theater has no place when discussing serious legislation regarding the 2nd amendment. But if you are going to have a serious discussion, and if you are going to use people as props, why not include people who have had all kinds of experiences with guns and violence?

For instance, we didn't see 71 year old Samuel Williams who defended himself and everyone in an Ocala, Florida Internet Café on July 18, 2012, when two thugs stormed in, brandished a gun and attempted to rob patrons at gunpoint. Mr. Williams withdrew his legally concealed pistol, fired at the armed intruders and potentially saved lives. (The goons ran out of the establishment like scared rabbits) They were later apprehended.
Nor did you see Debi Keeney, 47 of Highland, Missouri. She shot an intruder who forced his way into her apartment at 3 a.m. and threatened her 55 year old wheelchair bound sister. Debi didn't much enjoy watching her sister turn blue as the assailant choked her sister while demanding money - so she shot the SOB. Must have come as quite a surprise to the guy.
You also didn't see the Loganville, Georgia woman whose house was invaded by 32 year old Paul Slater. Mr. Slater, who has been arrested 6 times since 2008 and was recently released from prison, thought it would be a good idea to use a crowbar and break into the home's front door. He was mistaken. The woman had her two small children at home. She withdrew to a home office area in an attempt to hide from Slater. He entered the room and she promptly fired 5 shots, several of them entering Paul's face. Oooh! Unless you're Superman, that's gotta' hurt!
Last June in Phoenix, Arizona a 14 year old boy who was babysitting his siblings ages 8,10 and 12 shot a home intruder. The 37 year old intruder was armed but never got a shot off. The teen grabbed his father's 38 revolver and shot the scumbag as he charged the boy. This happened in an upper-middle class neighborhood at 4:30 in the afternoon. The youngster didn't appear during the State of the Union address either.

In all of the above mentioned instances, the potential victims used guns to save either themselves, loved ones or innocent strangers from imminent carnage. But such usage of legally owned firearms wasn't even mentioned. This President much prefers the adoration of victim hood. Those innocents in Connecticut last December were victims. But he wont discuss the non-victims I just did, because they don't fit into his arguments and ideology. Facts be dammed. While we mourn the loss of innocent life, we apparently don't celebrate the saving of innocent life when a gun is involved. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Yes, it can take a life. But so can a hammer. And last year more people were murdered by hammers than so-called assault rifles. Yet no one is considering limiting the sale, size or weight of hammers. Well, not yet.

Think your vote counts? Think again.

 

The Electoral College. It's suppose to give the appearance of an obvious winner by way of awarding states in total to the Presidential candidate who manages to get one more vote than the other guy. My state, Pennsylvania has recently begun discussions about awarding our electoral college votes proportionally. A few states currently do this. And I've come to think it makes a lot of sense. The map above represents the county by county votes for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Gov. Romney is represented in red. If you didn't know any better, you might assume he won handily. He didn't. Although he won the majority of counties, we don't award electoral votes by winning counties. Neither am I suggesting we do. But if you live in Pennsylvania like me and you voted for Mitt Romney, your vote was ignored. Never mind that millions on Pennsylvanians voted for Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor was awarded "0" electoral votes. In other words, our votes were ignored. There's no other way to look at it. Had votes been awarded proportionally, Barack Obama would have received 12 electoral votes and Mitt Romney, 8. Sounds fair to me. Mr. Obama didn't earn 100% of the votes, so why should get them?

Republicans have virtually no chance of winning states like California and New York. These two electoral laden states give Democrats a tremendous advantage in national elections. It's no wonder the Dems don't want to make any changes. They're already calling possible proportional distribution of electoral votes "vote rigging". Uh huh. What they really mean is, the system as it currently works to their advantage. So why would they want it changed? As it now stands, Florida and Ohio usually decide Presidential elections. Virtually every other state is pretty much spoken for. So why bother voting if you don't live in the Sunshine or Buckeye state?

Even if proportional votes were awarded in every state, Barack Obama still would have won in November - though it would have much closer and more accurately represented the voting wishes of the American populous. Plus every voter in every state would have their vote actually matter. So proportional voting isn't about changing election results, it's about registering and making every one's vote count. That's usually the Democrat's rally cry. But not in this case because it doesn't work to their advantage. I could make the argument that NOT to enact proportional distribution of electoral votes is racist. (There's that word) Think about it. Philadelphia has a large black voting population. Pittsburgh is overly represented in a similar way. Blacks vote consistently and overwhelmingly Democratic. Because of a large population in those two cities, as they go - Pennsylvania goes. Since Republicans do quite well in the state outside of those two regions, white votes go unrecognized and therefore - unrewarded. Philly and Pittsburgh essential decide who gets all 20 electoral votes. Hardly seems fair, does it? Proportional votes would solve this problem.

The status quo in politics usually wins. So I'm not optimistic these changes are on the verge of happening. Still, the GOP currently holds the Governor and state assembly's in the Keystone state. So if it were ever to happen, now would be a good time. And if the Dems have taught us anything, it's that once you obtain political advantage - use it!

Is it finally time to ban cars?

Carnage. There's no other word to describe it. Each year 40,000 Americans lose their lives on America's roadways. Approximately 95 every single day. Of that 95, at least 5 are children under the age of 15. That means that the death total of the Newtown school murders is achieved every single week via an automobile. Yet there are no protests to ban cars, limit the amount of cars a person could own or reduce the number of cylinders a car should have. After all, who really needs a 350 horse power engine, right? I checked the Constitution. There is no mention of the right to keep and bear a motorized vehicle. A ridiculous comparison? Well, you may think so but if the real reason behind gun control is to save lives and not disarm a responsible gun owning populous, we should be seeing massive protest in favor of "car control". But we're not.

An adult or child is far more likely to be injured or lose their life in a car accident than by a firearm. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. So if the fact that a child is more likely to drown in a bucket in their own home, than injured by a gun. 30 children a year die this way. What are we to do? Limit the width and liquid capacity of buckets? Almost 1000 kids a year will drown in various ways. Most within their own home. Tragic? Of course. But we already have a ton of federal, state and municipal laws enacted to keep children and adults safe from drowning. Laws don't save lives. Only common sense and personal responsibility can do that.

Some are willing to accept the fact that accidents do happen. And that no matter how hard we try, innocents will die in car accidents, boating accidents, drownings, falls and various other ways. I'm one of those people. We can and must try to limit such deaths. But we must also admit there is a limit as to how much success we'll have. Common sense and acts of God cannot be legislated. Dissolving or altering the Constitution cannot wipe away human error or change the human heart. We have to live in the real world not a theoretical one. The theoretical world would tell us that banning all firearms would make us safe from gun violence. But reality would suggest that banning or making certain activities illegal don't work. Prohibition failed miserably. Even today, though cocaine, marijuana, heroin and prostitution are all illegal - all of them can be had within and 20 minutes of where you live, no matter where you live.  Laws? Those who engage in such activities don't give a damn about laws. You think they're going to follow gun laws?

We live in a dangerous world. Acts of insane violence cannot be stopped by well meaning, though ineffective laws anymore than speed limits or stop signs reduce car accident deaths. Human nature and human error will interfere with the best of our intentions. Just as selfish drivers will blow through stop signs, exceed speed limit or tailgate at high speeds - so will those bent on destruction use a firearm to inflict carnage. It is not popular to use these analogies, but it is correct to do so. And because I know there are those who will use such weapons in their efforts of destruction, I choose to remain armed. For the same reason I purchase car insurance hoping that I never have to use it, I buy guns. Disarming or limiting my capacity to defend myself does not keep you safer. But going after those who would be dangerous to both you and I, would. That is where our efforts must be focused. Happy motoring.