Making Your Voice Heard

If you really want to end gun violence and institute sensible gun laws, you have to do it from the ground up. You have to make this a primary issue of local elections and you have to hold those whom you elect responsible for making it happen. If they don't propose those laws, vote them out in the next election. Or, if they do and the laws aren't voted in, vote out those who voted against the law and vote in more officials who will take it seriously.

I am a gun owner who moved from the US to Canada. In order to have my firearms in Canada, I had to take a firearms course, become licensed, and register the weapons. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the gun laws and instructions here are sensible. They don't really impede anyone from owning the firearms they want (within reason), and those who want to target practice or hunt have all the options they could need to do either. While there is political back and forth every now and then about certain semi-automatic weapons being available, there is debate and discussion about it each time and every side listens.

Why isn't this happening in America?

The politicians are afraid of the gun lobby. But, here's the thing: The best estimates of the membership of NRA (National Rifle Association) show it to have about 5 million members. That's about 0.015 percent of the population. And, since 2018, that number has declined. The revenue it generates is down by over $100 million and continues to fall. How do we let such a small number of radicals set gun policy for an entire nation?

Next, of course, you have firearm manufacturers. They are a small, but financially powerful group of lobbyists who contribute in the tens of thousands to, primarily, Republican lawmakers each election cycle. Anywhere between $40,000 and $100,000 is donated to each lawmaker to ensure they are pro-firearm and pro-Second Amendment. What's funny is that these amounts are really not significant to each individual elected official, yet their voice is outsized after each and every gun-related tragedy.

So, in order to enact common sense gun laws, we need to make these payments public, we need to question those who take those donation publically, and we need to ask sensible questions about why politicians are giving outsized voice to such a tiny minority of people in America.

Lastly, America thinks it always has to reinvent the wheel. It can't look at literally every other industrialized nation on the planet and cherry-pick the best, most sensible, common-sense laws and programs from countries that have already gone through this process, it must create its own system from scratch with as many loopholes and bootlicking of industry and lobbies as possible. As I noted above, the Canadian system is reasonable. So, too, are systems from many other nations around the world. Use that knowledge, call in their experts and politicians who went through this process, and figure out what will work for the majority of Americans.

But it all starts from local elections. Make common-sense gun laws a priority. Every single town meeting, Q&A, and interview they need to be asked about this topic. They need to be held accountable for this issue once in office. They need to be voted in or out based on what they do or do not do on this topic. This is true for Judges, elected police/sherrif officials, mayors, district attorneys, etc. And then, do the same for higher offices (county and state). And then, press onward and make it a primary talking point at every single Presidential and Congressional election rally, interview, and town-hall meeting. You can find conservative and liberal politicians who will agree that this is an issue and would be willing to back common-sense laws if the people press them to.

It's up to YOU to do this, though. You have to be willing to make this an issue that is important, visible, and sustained. You have to hold your elected officials accountable if they don't do anything about it by not re-electing them. And you have to be in it for the long haul; it's not something that can be fixed after one election cycle. It could take a decade or more. But isn't the safety of our children, our coworkers, our friends, and our family worth it?

Taking Your Entitlements

I've read a lot of articles and watched many programs concerning the quest to cut Social Security (and Medicare). One question I have never seen answered is: Who gets the money? 

• Are they going to cancel it and then send each of us a check for all of the money we've put into SS? Somehow, I doubt it. 

• Are they going to provide us compounded interest for the years, possibly decades, they've had our money? I'm confident this won't happen. 

• Are they saying they want to cancel it and keep the money? This seems all too likely, to me. 

I will grant that Social Security was created a bit awkwardly. It is dependent on the next generation paying enough into it to afford the services for the previous generation (and that previous generation's payments created the nest egg for the entire program). This means that, as the Baby Boomers retire, the burden will be greater on the remaining workers (a smaller number of people). However, Boomers are working longer and dying quicker than other generations, so the end results likely won't be as ominous as some predict. And, once that bubble of people is through the system, it will go back to working as intended. We don't have to cancel the entire thing in order to survive the Boomer Bulge in SS.

Also, why do people allow certain politicians to make the word "entitlement" sound like a bad word without pushing back at them I mean, the term stems from the fact you paid into a program and are *entitled* to the benefits that the program provides. How is that a bad thing? We have plenty of other areas where we pay people in advance and then are entitled to services. For example, after paying every year into your insurance coverage, you are entitled to repairs on your car if you are in a collision. If you buy tickets in advance for a concert, movie, or play, you are entitled to a seat at the show when you arrive.

I'm not sure why certain people are okay with the threat of a few taking away access to things that everyone is entitled to, should they need it. Yes, you might not need child care, food stamps, or other forms of assistance now, but should that change, they are there for you because you (and millions of others) paid into thos programs. It's a "Just In Case" situation, with most. Social Security is not a JIC program, however; everyone is entitled to thier share based on how much they paid in and for how long. It is meant to supplement whatever retirement you have from your job, your 401k, your pension, or your savings.

I think we all need to ask ourselves, why do some politicians want to cancel these successful programs? What do they gain? Who really benefits from these actions?