GAHeath.com

One of our greatest leaders in this country once gave a great speech in which the introduction from that speech applies to gun owners today.  Today as gun owners we are divided, and as Abraham Lincoln “A house divided against itself cannot stand.“  It is important to note that we gun owners are currently divided against each other and we must unite or we will loose.  Perhaps it is time for each of the different camps to spend a little time in each others shoes,  I like to think of myself as a Balanced gun owner and I hope that you also, or at the very least are willing to become one.

There are currently 5 camps in the gun owners world, members of which are dead set on “These other gun owners want to toss me under the bus” mentality.  The first camp is called the “Fudds” by the others.  They are hunters and outdoorsmen who who’s firearms are threatened every time there stories and potential legisilation about “sniper rifles”.  The second camp is called the “Rambo’s wannabe’s” by their peers.  They own and shoot “Evil Black Rifles” that were banned under the Clinton so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”  The third camp that is responsible for the in fighting are called the “Wyatt Earps” or “Doc Holidays” by their peers.  They carry guns on their person and have a more defensive nature for their firearms.  The next camp we come to is the “Professionals” whose lives may depend on their firearms.  The Professionals carry and use firearms as part of their job which could be Law Enforcement, Security, or Military.  Finally we have the “Competitors” camp who use firearms to compete in sanctioned competitions.

The Clinton so called “Assault Weapons Ban” affected Some of the “Fudds”, had a serious impact on the “Rambo Wannabes”, affected the “Wyatt Earps”/”Doc Holidays”, Affected the non-government portion of the “Professionals”, and impacted the “Competitors” showing that we all can be hurt by bad legislation.  The current political climate is ripe for an effort to repeat a greatly expanded and much more permanent so called “Assult Weapons Ban” that will affect firearms that were not included in the original.  If this happens we may never again see the level of freedom we enjoy today.

Once more we come back to the quote “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Our opponents are united against us and yet we have all been calling each other names and fighting over minor things, this must change or we will loose our rights.  First off lets refer to each other as gun owners, Second lets get membership up in groups that defend our rights, Third lets go and join at least one of the other camps.  Finally lets contact the politicians and let them know that if they attempt to take away our rights then they will loose their jobs.  Should we do this as a united mass of gun owners they will have to listen.  If we try it as five different camps then they will say “We have to ban the very dangerous assault weapons, but it will only be those.”  Next it maybe “We have to stop people from carrying a gun anywhere they feel like so we are banning carrying of arms in public, but thats all we intend to do.”  Then it maybe “We have to ban those extremely dangerous sniper rifles that ignore bullet proof vests, but those are all we will ban.”  Finally they will come to the competitors who will have to have their firearms stored in a government approved facility and can only use them when when allowed for practice and competition.  Eventually they will even turn on the professionals who will not be able to carry unless they are working and have a so called “legitimate” need for them.

I hunt with an AR15 while my daily carry stays concealed on me, so I like to think of myself as a balanced gun owner.  I try not to see “Fudds”, “Rambo wannabes”, “Wyatt Earps”/”Doc Holidays”, Professionals, or competitors as I prefer to see “gun owners”.  I try to introduce new people to the shooting sports, I have signed up people for the NRA and I have encouraged people to join the other gun owners groups.  I strongly believe that we must unite our divided house before it falls in on our heads.  Will you join with me and unite with other gun owners before its too late?

Lets think back to April 19, 2006 when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.” You can find this and more at this congressional webpage.  Keep in mind that is the exact press release from the Democrats which became an election promise, which we have not seen the results of.  Lets fast forward to July 19, 2008 where the Democrat controlled congress is now considering a ten cent per gallon tax hike on gasoline.  If you don’t believe me then check out this link.  Now folks that will be all.

I am getting sick and tired of hearing our two presumptive candidates for the White House saying “When I am elected as President of the United States I will do/fix/correct/improve…”  The problem is both candidates are United States Senators and actually have more power to get something done now as presidential candidates than they would as President.

According to my government classes I took Senators, and representatives, have the power to introduce bills into congress while the President has to get one of them to do it for him.  Once the bill is introduced they can use their position as a candidate, party ties, friends, ect. to get the bill through committee and up for a vote.  If the Candidate is truly trying to win votes in the election with this effort they would even go so far as to demand a recorded vote so that the voters can see where all the candidates honestly stand on this issue

As a Presidential candidate they also have the power to motivate their party, and their oppenants party into supporting a bill.  Now how would they go about getting their oppenants party to support a bill?  Its rather simple as their opponent, and their opponents party, could be placed into a positiion of having to support the bill or being seen as resisting change/progress or even worse as putting their own priorities ahead of those of the people.  As a candidate they can literally make the proposed bill a campain issue forcing the other candidate to endorse it or show the voters who has their interests at heart.

For the final stage of the bill’s progress the current President could sign the proposed bill into law or veto it.  Depending on the candidates stand they can then make an issue of “If elected I would sign/veto this bil, or its repeal, should it cross my desk.”  The candidate can then submit the bill again or submit a bill repealing the other guy’s bill forcing the issue to go on longer.

I don’t know about you, but I am tired of high gas prices, I am tired of hearing empty promises from both sides, and I am sick and tired of hearing “I will do …. when elected as President” when they have more power now to get something done. So candidates quit telling what you will do and show me what you will do, or as the title of this post says:

Go to work and do your job.

If you flip through radio dial and catch any conservative talk show program you have heard about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Reverend Wright happens to be Barack Obama’s former preacher, and friend, for over 20 years. Now you may wonder why is the political aspect Mr. Obama’s former pastor so important? The answer to that is Influence, Agreement, and Association.

The preacher one listens to can influence their thinking, behavior, associations, and world view. If one is subject to a specific belief system as many as three times a week for years it will begin to take hold in someone’s own though processes and influence their thinking. This is one method churches use to convert people to their belief system. This method is also used by teachers in our schools to influence the belief structure of our students. Our media uses this method to convince us their opinions matter. In fact the popular concept of “Brainwashing” is a variation of this method. Additionally some cases of Stockholm syndrome, intentionally or not, may be due in part to this method. This is also a method used by terrorist groups to condition and/or recruit new members.

Most people will quit attending a church, and find another, if the pastor preaches something that they find morally offensive. There is nothing preventing these people from attending another church. If enough people in the church find the pastor’s comments morally offensive the congregation can often remove that pastor or start a new church. By attending a church in which the pastor often makes statements that are morally offensive a person is in fact agreeing with those statements and is showing their support for those statements.

Association is also an important aspect of the issue. One’s association with their pastor, friends, and relatives is always subject to scrutiny as they are the people who are most likely to influence their actions and beliefs. Lets consider a person who does a jail ministry and attempts to help reform criminals with Christian beliefs. Now lets say one of these prisoners gets caught with an illegal item from the outside everyone who associated with that prisoner will be subject to scrutiny. So now we look at who the minister associates with and discover the prisoner’s own brother and the leader of the prisoner’s gang are both good friends of the minister. Should he not subject to more scrutiny than if he was not associated with these people?

In the end who a pastor helps define who someone is, how they think, and what influences them. A pastor does not define all these things on his own, he just helps define them. Continued attendance to a pastor’s church shows one’s agreement with him and support for his message. One’s association with a pastor outside of the regular services shows a level of interaction that can influence and stifle one’s own beliefs to a degree not seen in the regular congregation. One’s pastor may not define who a person is alone, but they help define and help demonstrate who that person is.