Pledge of Allegiance

Getting them young

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Let’s ask an honest question: does a typical 4 year-old understand what a pledge means? Does a 4 year-old understand allegiance, indivisibility, liberty and justice? I’m pretty sure no 4 year-old understands the concept of a republic, let alone the other concepts just mentioned.

So why are preschools teaching 4 year-olds the pledge of allegiance?

When a 4 year-old recites the pledge of allegiance, are they merely reciting words or do they actually understand the words they are saying? I highly, highly doubt it’s the latter. And if you were to ask a 4 year-old why they are reciting the pledge, they’d likely respond with whatever their teacher told them to say.

Good God, the indoctrination runs deep in this country. Do we no longer have any freedom of thought? Seriously, is no one allowed to think on their own?

And yet parents feel pride in the recited indoctrination of their children. Seeing a video tonight of one such 4 year-old reciting the pledge, I could only feel lividity and disgust.

What have we become?

Life/Politics/Taxes

3 tax breaks to think about

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

A lot of people focus a lot of time and effort on giving as little money as possible to the Federal government. I can understand why, but much of this time and effort appears to be expended on things with very little gain for the average individual. Now that we’re in November, chances are you’re in an open-enrollment period for your company benefits. MarketWatch recently delved into three options that may be available that may reduce your tax burden, but without discussing the drawbacks.

It seems one thing that people often forget to discuss is that everything in life is a tradeoff on something else. Buying something means taking on more debt or having less money. The same with taxes. Taxes are always going to be a financial catch-22, because reducing your tax burden almost always requires you taking on a major expense or reducing your take-home pay – i.e. the only realistic and legal means of reducing your tax burden involves you giving up money.

With that, let’s get into MarketWatch’s three options.

Health care flexible spending account (FSA)

Under the law you can set aside up to $2,500 of your pre-tax salary or wage into a designated tax-free account to be used for certain health care expenses, such as deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. This reduction means you also reduce your tax burden to the Federal government.

Here’s the catch: what you don’t spend you lose. So to avoid really losing out on this deal, you’d better be pretty good at approximating what you’ll be spending, unless your employer allows for a rollover of whatever is left or a grace period that extends into the new year, both which should still be accounted.

Where the FSA really shines is for the routine out-of-pocket expenses that you can reasonably expect. As an example, my wife goes to the eye doctor every year and wears contacts. The out of pocket expenses and cost of her contacts could be covered through an FSA. Instead I opted to bring her under a better vision plan that’ll reduce our out-of-pocket expenses without a significant reduction in my paycheck – i.e. she’s on the vision plan I get through work.

In short, her next vision appointment will have a reduced out-of-pocket expense attached to it without having to take a reduced income to offset it.

So the health care FSA is better than merely having an account into which you periodically put money to save up for known upcoming expenses because of the tax exempt status. Now only if they’d have something similar for veterinary expenses.

Dependent care flexible spending account

The only drawback of this option is just the "use it or lose it rule". But otherwise, this one seems to be virtually all gain if you have kids and pay for child care. You reduce your tax burden without increasing your out-of-pocket expenses, right?

Well, technically, you don’t increase your out-of-pocket expenses, but you may not be decreasing them either. Most dependent care FSAs requires you to seek reimbursement for what you spend. This basically means that you’re still using after-tax dollars to pay for care, then seeking reimbursement for what you’ve already spent out of your pre-tax dollars. The alternative to the dependent care FSA is the dependent care tax credit.

Many health care FSAs provide a card similar to a debit card that allows you to spend your health care FSA money when you need to without having to seek reimbursement later. So far such an option for dependent care FSAs is not wide spread, and may not even be an accepted form of payment. For example if you hire your neighbor to watch your under 13 child while you and your spouse go out for the night, you may not be able to pay him or her with your FSA debit card and will likely, instead, have to pay with cash or a check and seek reimbursement.

That’s provided you have enough in your FSA at the time you file for reimbursement to be reimbursed. Most dependent care FSAs are not "front loaded", meaning, like a bank account, you can only receive as much as is currently sitting in your FSA and no more. Many health care FSAs are "front loaded", meaning you can spend as much as you need when you need it, so long as you don’t go over your annual allotment.

Transportation expenses

Apparently there are flexible spending accounts for transportation expenses. Interesting. But it only covers expenses related to public transportation, van pooling, and public parking. Damn.

So if I worked in downtown Kansas City and had to park at a parking garage, then I could set aside pre-tax dollars to cover those expenses. Wait, no. I’d have to pay cash or with a credit card at the garage exit, then seek reimbursement later. So if you drive yourself to work, you’re out of luck on this option unless you routinely park in a parking garage where you are charged for parking, but even then, unless you’re given a debit card for this, you still pay out of pocket and then seek reimbursement later.

Now you could switch to taking public transportation, but chances are that’s going to be something extremely inconvenient to you. I’ll use myself as an example. Currently it takes me about a half hour to get to work and to get home, about an hour out of my day. Mapping the same route through Google Maps to take the bus will take two hours each way, an additional three hours out of my day lost while I sit on the bus. No thanks.

If you’re already taking public transportation to get to and from work, then take advantage of this, but read your benefits package first to find out what is involved. Because what could be involved is a $130 maximum reduction each month in your gross pay, meaning a reduction in what you take home, while still paying the same price for public transportation (or more if fares have gone up), and having to live on less money until you seek reimbursement and are reimbursed for your transportation expenses. And if you’re already strapped for cash, it may be too costly to take advantage of this option depending on how long it takes to be reimbursed, with the reimbursements basically covering the next cycle of transportation costs.

The secret to reducing your tax burden: less money

The common denominator to these programs should be obvious: they reduce your income. Paying less in income taxes almost always requires you to reduce your take-home pay. Whether it is through 401(k) deductions, deductions for flexible spending accounts, or the like, they all require you to reduce your take-home pay. And that’s all pre-tax stuff. Even the after-tax allowable deductions require expenditures to go along with them.

So reducing your tax burden requires expending cash in certain directions or taking on payroll deductions that reduce your take-home pay. How many people actually actively realize this?

Reimbursement accounts – i.e. the FSA options that do not provide for a debit card – also still require you to spend out of pocket up front. This means that you are taking a reduced income without a congruent reduction in expenses, meaning your discretionary income is less until you get reimbursed, and how long that takes will depend on the benefits provider, and it’s additional time out of your day along with additional record keeping for the benefits provider. Now if you’re transitioning to a dependent care FSA where previously you took advantage of the dependent care tax credit, you should already have been doing some meticulous record keeping anyway, as you’d be needing it in case of an audit.

So in the end, rather than looking at these "tax breaks" and thinking you’re reducing your tax burden, you might be taking on even more. A reduced income, overhead and bureaucracy to take advantage of the option, no congruent reduction in out-of-pocket expenses. What are the gains and what are the trade-offs?

Do the math to determine how affordable it will be and what the best option will be. And this starts with knowing what the benefits plan provides and how to take advantage of it.

Concealed carry

Exercising a right

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

What does it take to legally carry a concealed weapon, even in Missouri, one of the most gun-friendly States in the US? Here’s what it takes:

Glock 19 Gen4:

  • $650 purchase price (purchased brand new)
  • $35 FFL transfer fee (it was purchased online from an out-of-state retailer)
  • ATF 4473 form
  • NICS background check

Ammunition: $45 + shipping for 50 rounds (124gr Speer Gold Dot)

Holsters: Several hundred dollars trying out different types till I find one that works well

Missouri CCW endorsement (good for 3 years):

  • $125 for all-day lecture plus marksmanship test
  • $30 for box of 100 rounds of ammunition for marksmanship test
  • $100 application fee
  • Fingerprinted by county sheriff
  • Up to 45 day statutory waiting period for more extensive background check
  • $6 fee with Missouri Department of Revenue for new identification

glock.jpg

Legal ability to protect myself, my loved ones and others most anywhere I typically go: Priceless

It costs several thousand dollars, from the purchase of the firearm to the issuing of the permit. There’s all the range time for marksmanship practice and the ammo needed for that. If I decide to change which firearm I carry (which I’ve already done since acquiring my permit as the Glock 19 was not the first weapon I carried), then it’s additional expense, another ATF 4473 form and another NICS background check.

I’ve had several background checks. My fingerprints and information are permanently on file with Missouri and Federal law enforcement agencies.

If you think someone who goes through all of this to obtain a concealed weapons permit is a danger to society, you are deluded beyond all help.

And yet to many, this still is not enough.

Feminism/Law/Life/Politics/Sex

Apparently I rape my wife

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Two words that modern feminists try to control like kings over land are easily "consent" and, along with that, "rape". And to many feminists, it seems, anything less than the following conversation between Alice and Bob makes any sex between them rape and Bob the rapist:

Bob: Do you want to have sex with me?

Alice: Yes!

Sound absurd? If you look at feminist discussions of rape and consent, the tendency exists to boil consent down to an absolute situation. And where consent is not explicitly declared, consent does not exist, and the sex is rape. Sara Alcid said this in an article called "Navigating consent: Debunking the ‘grey area’ myth":

Silence, "ouch," or "maybe…" are interpreted by some as expressions of consent because a defined and clear "no" wasn’t uttered.

A lack of "no" is not a "yes." Assumed or inferred consent is not consent.

An "Okay, I guess" is not a yes. It’s important to not use or base your actions off of vague language when communicating about sex and intimacy.

Let’s put something into perspective here. In how many consensual encounters would you guess a woman has actually explicitly said "Yes"? In how many of the sexual encounters I’ve had with my wife would you guess my wife has actually explicitly said "Yes"? And women, how many times have you had sex without first being asked if you want to have sex or if you’re willing to have sex? How many times have you had consensual sex without actually saying "Yes" to it?

Yet according to many feminists, and the fairly absolutist definition of consent they appear to take, this would mean most sexual encounters are sexual assaults, and most women who have had sex at least once in their lives is a rape victim.

Ladies, how many of you were a little hesitant before your first time? How many of you were hesitant in trying something new? According to the idea of "enthusiastic consent", as explained by "Elfity" of Persephone Magazine, you may not have consented, and may have been raped (emphasis added):

I was giving a presentation to a rather small audience, which I was grateful for as it allowed for discussion. Most of the experiece (sic) was quite positive, and I got a lot of great feedback. And then we hit the enthusiastic consent barrier. Now, in a room full of feminists and feminist-allies, I was not expecting to get any argument on this. I was, to be honest, a little shocked, because I had not planned for debate on this topic. "But it kills the mood!" and "I think that’s unnecessary" comments filled the room. The thing is, I never said it was easy; I said it was necessary and important if we are going to move forward. I know I may get some disagreement on that, but I think it is very true. 93% of victims (and I say victims because I don’t know who survived and who didn’t) are assaulted by someone they know. This means that there is a clear consent issue in this culture, and enthusiastic consent is one way to help fix some of that problem. And yes, I realize that stopping the sexytimes to ask if something is OK isn’t exactly hot to most people. I get that. Make it hot. Make it sexy. you don’t have to stop, walk twenty paces, and ask for permission. Whisper it gently into your partner’s ear, seductively say, "Hey, I think XXX would be sexy. Want to try it?" If your partner is even hesitant, back off.

Sure consent can be an issue, but the fact she brought up the 93% statistic in her discussion is rather interesting, and I feel the only reason to do so is to assert a point that anything less than "enthusiastic consent" is not consent:

The idea of enthusiastic consent is quite simple. In a nutshell, it advocates for enthusiastic agreement to sexual activity, rather than passive agreement… The concept also requires that consent be given to each piece of sexual activity, meaning that a yes to one thing (such as vaginal penetration) does not mean consent to another (like anal penetration)… It’s just common courtesy, really.

Of course it’s common courtesy, so why not just call it "common courtesy" instead of "enthusiastic consent"? Just say, "Hey guys, before you stick your dick in her ass, have the decency to ask her if she’d like to go in that direction." But then, does this require "enthusiastic consent"? No. A woman who is curious may be willing but hesitant, meaning her consent may be genuine and present, but not "enthusiastic".

Can you think of something you’ve tried for which you were initially hesitant but tried it anyway, such as a new kind of "exotic" cuisine? Hesitation in the face of something unknown or unfamiliar is not only common, but natural.

But hesitation is not duress, and persuasion is not coercion. Attempting to persuade her into trying something new, even if in the middle of sex, is not coercing her into doing it, nor does it introduce a state of duress into the situation. Hesitation does not mean "yes", but it also does not mean "no". A person who is hesitant to try something new is not saying "No" to it and the option to persuade them still exists until they say "No" or give some other kind of clearly negative indication.

Now I’ve advocated in other venues for introducing new sexual ideas outside the realm of sexual activity and inebriation. In other words, if you want to give, say, anal sex a try, in the middle of sex is not where the idea should be introduced, and when the idea is discussed, you should not do it while consuming alcohol or drugs. It is possible to do or agree to something while under the influence of drugs or hormones that you otherwise would not do or agree to while sober.

Speaking of sobriety, in August 2013, Dr Phil McGraw asked via Twitter (since deleted): "If a girl is drunk, is it OK to have sex with her?" It’s a pretty simple question, one that actually should be discussed, yet the backlash against even asking the question shows much of what is wrong today. On Huffington Post, Angelina Chapin observed, "People immediately labelled (sic) Phil a rape apologist. It was like watching a minnow dropped into a piranha tank." Later in her article, she said:

Aside from the innocuous snark that characterizes Twitter — "Aren’t you married?" — the criticisms were an ugly distortion of the original message.

…

Unless you truly believe Dr. Phil, a man who has built his career on espousing family values, decided to crowdsource how far he could go with extramarital kicks, I think we can agree the tweet was strictly business. And unless you’re plain delusional, you know the issue of alcohol and consent needs more discussion.

In response to the backlash, Karen Straughan, known colloquially as "Girl Writes What", said this for Honey Badger Radio, a men’s rights advocacy podcast (from the description of the video):

Especially since in [feminists’] minds, Dr Phil is guilty of the gravest of sins. He is a man, and he dared to talk about something that might possibly have something to do with rape. What he didn’t realize is that Feminists own that word and that issue, and for a non-feminist, let alone a non-female, to speak about, or even have an opinion about, rape is blasphemy.

In a Change.org petition in response to the tweet, the petition’s author, Carmen Rios of Washington, DC, said this: "Lesson 101 in my courses was that sexual contact without verbal, sober, conscious consent is rape." Another assertion that a woman must explicitly say "Yes" for consent to exist, adding to it the unfounded assertion that deteriorated sobriety also eliminates a woman’s legal ability to consent to sex, even if she is the initiator – but, somehow, the same is not applied to men.

If she is not asked or does not verbally and explicitly indicate consent, it’s rape, even if consent can be reasonably determined to have been implied. Again, in how many consensual sexual encounters is consent not verbal?

In 2004 a short film was released called "Consent" (YouTube). In the film the guy and gal negotiate terms of the sex they are about to have, with lawyers assisting in the negotiating to draw up formal terms of the sexual encounter. When I first saw it, I thought it was comically absurd to the highest degree, but when you look at the claims about consent made by feminists and how they seem to keep narrowing the definition, I cannot help but wonder if that is the course being maneuvered.

But let’s take it even further (as if I haven’t gone far enough).

Ladies, how many of you would say "he can’t keep his hands off me"? Well if your husband, boyfriend or fiancé is like that, then he’s actually sexually assaulting you, especially if in not being able to keep his hands off you his hands travel across your chest, your backside, or your crotch, since sexual contact with anything less than "verbal, sober, conscious consent" is sexual assault, apparently.

Which would mean I sexually assault my wife.

Except my wife also likes that I "can’t keep my hands off her". Sure it can be a little inconvenient at times, like when I’m getting playful with her while she’s on the phone with her mother, but then that’s part of the fun, and it’s all in fun and typically does not lead to sex, nor is sex my goal in doing that… most of the time. To borrow my wife’s words, I’m just being a brat at that point.

And I think if I actually verbally asked my wife "can I put my hands on your ass?" or "can I grope your tits?", she’d just give me a blank stare and wonder what I’d been drinking or smoking. And why I wasn’t sharing. The same if I were to explicitly ask for sex as opposed to just taking my brattiness in that direction.

It’s clear that feminists are trying to control the definition of consent, and with it the definition of rape. I feel this has little to do with actually preventing rape and more to do with controlling men, kind of how gun control is more about control than guns. And when you control what defines rape, and by extension what defines a rapist, you get women who talk to and about men as if we are all rapists in waiting.

And then as the definition of consent is still narrowed further, eventually you reach the point where feminists are saying, or heavily implying that most, if not virtually all men who have had sex are rapists and most, if not virtually every woman who has had sex is a rape victim.

And, so, here we are, or at least that seems to be where we are going.

Espresso

Contacting De’Longhi

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 2 Comments

Delonghi_logo.jpgRecently I needed to contact De’Longhi about an issue I had been experiencing with my EC-155 espresso maker, so first a little background in case you’ve had a similar issue.

Here’s how I make a latte:

  1. Let the machine warm up at least the requisite 15 minutes the manual suggests. When the machine is warmed up, grind and dose out the coffee in the portafilter.
  2. Turn the machine up to steam and let it come up to temperature. Get the milk in the mean time.
  3. Steam the milk.
  4. Pull excess steam and water through the steam wand to bring it back under temperature and let it come up to temperature for the espresso.
  5. Brew the espresso.

And after all of that is said and done, I clean the machine. Basically this routine is what I’ve seen recommended by Seattle Coffee Gear, from whom I purchased the machine in April 2012. If you’ve read any of my other articles on my espresso maker, you may already be aware that I’ve also made a couple upgrades to my machine (here and here).

So what’s the issue I’ve been having?

To make a long story short, water has been coming out of the steam wand when it should not be. For example, while the machine is warming up, water will fast drip out of the steam wand, and steam will come out of it as well while it’s sitting idle and warming up completely. When I’m brewing coffee, water will also come out of the steam wand – this will obviously have an impact on the quality of the shots I’m pulling.

Seattle Coffee Gear distributes “tune-up kits” for various espresso machines. On their YouTube page, they uploaded a video describing the “tune-up kit” they have for the Saeco Via Venezia, which comes with a brew gasket, diffuser screen, and a valve and valve spring that goes inside the brew head. On the video for the Via Venezia, I said this:

Given the problems described that warrant replacing the valve and spring, I need to do that to my EC155. It’s over a year old, so I think replacing all the small parts in the brew group would be beneficial.

In the video, SCG technician Brendan mentioned the problem I’m experiencing as a possible issue related to the valve spring, in particular, going bad: “If you’re brewing and you’re seeing it dripping from your steam wand, you want to replace this.” Unfortunately SCG doesn’t distribute the tune-up kit for De’Longhi machines. In response to my comment, Kat Oak, part of SCG’s Marketing and Communications team, said this:

Let us know if you can find them! We repair DeLonghis, but they don’t sell us parts for the small machines like yours 🙁 If you find a source, please post it here for other owners (if you don’t mind) – Kat

I ordered the parts from eReplacementParts.com, and I ordered the same parts that would comprise a tune-up kit if Seattle Coffee Gear was making one: valve and valve spring, gasket and diffuser. I also discovered through De’Longhi’s customer service page that parts can also be ordered through a company called Encompass Supply Chain Solutions.

But given that I’ve upgraded the steam wand on the machine, I’ve also had a bit of experience with tearing one apart, so while waiting for the parts, I decided to do just that. I tore down the machine, including taking down the boiler. And seeing in person what the various diagrams have shown, I was skeptical that the parts in question were going to take care of my issue, even though the boilers for the Saeco Aroma and the De’Longhi EC-155 have similar designs. So also while waiting for the parts, I sent this e-mail to De’Longhi’s support e-mail address:

Good day,

I have a De’Longhi EC-155 which I’ve owned since April 2012. Over the last couple months, I’ve been noticing something odd.

While the machine is warming up, water comes out of the steam wand at about the same degree as a dripping faucet. Bear in mind this occurs with the steam/water valve closed. When I’m brewing espresso, water comes out of the steam wand at what appears to be about the same volume and velocity as it comes through the diffuser. I observed something similar during a recent descaling. While the machine is warming up for steam, water and steam will come out of the steam wand, again with the valve closed.

Given the machine is over a year old, I’m wondering if there are parts that need to be replaced. Please advise on what I could do to troubleshoot this issue and correct it.

I sent this message on July 7, 2013. The reply came on July 23, 2013. Basically all they said is to contact a service center. Well the only service center I would consider calling – Seattle Coffee Gear – has already told me through a video likely what they would tell me via e-mail or over the phone. And they’ve also already said they don’t have parts.

Here’s De’Longhi’s response in full:

Dear Valued DeLonghi Customer,

Thank you for contacting DeLonghi Customer Service.  My name is Anthony, 409852, and I’ll be more than glad to help you today.

I am sorry to hear about your issues with the steam wand. Unfortunately, the issue would be internal and we would have limited information about what could be replaced to resolve the issue. These unit are normally replaced and not serviced. If you are wanting to get service, here is where to go to check for a nearest location, http://delonghiusa.com/support/service_centers. You would call one of the Service Centers for more information on the process for sending in for repair.

Thank you again for contacting DeLonghi Customer Service,

Anthony, 409852

Good thing I’d already ordered the parts, as I have no interest in sending it in for repair.

So did the parts do the trick? Nope. As expected, replacing the small parts did not curtail or alleviate my problem. Instead I think the problem is more in line with the parts of the boiler that are not easily removed and/or replaced: the tap on the top of the boiler through which the steam and hot water travel.

And I wasn’t willing to go out and buy the tools needed to thoroughly dissect the boiler down to every last bolt, nut and gasket, so I just gave up on it. Perhaps some other time.

Instead I’ve recently replaced the machine with a Breville BES840XL, also known as “the Infuser”. Otherwise the De’Longhi was a good machine while it lasted, and upgrading the basket and steam wand prepared me pretty well for the new machine.

Politics

Response from Senator McCaskill

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On August 21, 2013, the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.  This type of act violates both the international prohibition on the use of such weapons and a government’s basic duty to protect its people.  I strongly condemn this abominable action, and I believe the Syrian leaders responsible must be held accountable.

A peaceful end to the volatile conflict in Syria must remain a diplomatic priority for the international community and the United States, and we must work with our allies to prevent the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons in the future.  I support ongoing diplomatic efforts to hold the Syrian government accountable for their use of chemical weapons and require them to turn over their remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons to international forces to be destroyed.

I believe the President has made an important case for why Syria’s use of chemical weapons has serious implications for America’s national security and that a credible threat of military force can strengthen the chances of a diplomatic solution.  Absent a peaceful resolution, we must carefully consider any further engagement in Syria.  I continue to weigh the possible consequences of military action.  I will continue to engage with my colleagues, evaluate classified information, and monitor the evolving situation, and I will continue to view the difficult questions related to Syria with the experiences our nation has had in Iraq and Afghanistan close in mind.

Concealed carry

Defending Starbucks

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In the wake of the recent firearms policy announcement by Starbucks, numerous gun rights advocates are reasonably upset. But I think they’re overreaching, reading too much into the policy and interpreting from it things it does not say.

Now first, Starbucks has a right as a private organization to set whatever policies it wants regarding firearms. They can turn every Starbucks into a gun free zone if they so desire. And that is what many are presuming Starbucks has done, but they haven’t.

Initially Starbucks said they will not have any firearms policies more restrictive than whatever laws are applicable. In response to this, they ended up attracting the attention of the open carry crowd in States where open carry is legal – I don’t frequent Starbucks so I can’t speak to any open carry activity here in Missouri. And with this attention, Starbucks was wrongfully brought into a policy battle it would rather have avoided. So Starbucks tried to do what they can to get out of that fight.

And the only way to get out of it was to disallow the people who had brought them into it. The policy change reads more as a "leave us alone, we want no part of your political squabble" than anything else. And the policy is easily targeted at open carry. Howard Schultz said this, according to the New York Times:

I want to make it very clear that Starbucks is not a policy maker and as a company we are not pro- or anti-gun. However, there have been a number of episodes over the course of the last few months that have put us in a position to take a big step back and assess the issue of open carry.

Now the policy is a little vague in its "no guns welcome" kind of language, making it sound like they don’t want CCWs either. But then when has a CCW (carrier of a concealed weapon) ever really been a problem? So long as you don’t see the firearm, there’s no need for anyone to be concerned. CCWs tend to not want to attract attention to themselves, and the idea of carrying concealed is to make it such that no one can tell if you have a firearm.

The one thing that open carry advocates need to understand is that the mere sight of that firearm will freak out a lot of people, and some may even call the police. You may also be legitimately detained, possibly arrested for causing a scene. Remember that "disturbing the peace" tends to be an arrest offense, along with "disorderly conduct", and open carry, even if completely legal under your State’s laws, may fall under either category depending on the circumstance.

Being callous and arrogant while carrying a firearm is no way to protect your rights, and the open carry guys who end up on YouTube after baiting police and scaring the public tend to be the callous and arrogant assholes the rest of the gun community and gun rights advocacy need to disavow.

Logistically open carry makes no sense whatsoever, and the only reason a person should open carry is if they cannot legally carry concealed. But if you can carry concealed, you should carry concealed, and open carry should not be considered an option.

So if you are a CCW, I’d say to continue going to Starbucks and continue to carry your firearm there. The policy already says they won’t confront people carrying firearms, but, again, when has a CCW ever really been a problem? Sure a case or two crops up now and again, but otherwise it’s not really a problem because the firearm is to be carried concealed and inconspicuous. So if you walk into Starbucks properly carrying concealed, you shouldn’t have any problem, and neither should Starbucks.

The troublemakers have virtually always been the open carry guys. And, rightfully so, they are the ones Starbucks doesn’t want coming around again. As for me, I’m not going to be frequenting Starbucks anytime soon simply because if I’m going to get a latte, I’ll prefer the local coffee company, The Roasterie.

And unfortunately for Starbucks this isn’t going away anytime soon. Both sides seem to want every company to take a pro or anti-gun stance, and that just isn’t right in my opinion…

Second Amendment

Nukes, bombs, and the Second Amendment

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It typically doesn’t take long for gun control supporters to bring up explosives when talking about the Second Amendment. Or they’ll go all out and bring up "nuclear weapons". It’s as if they think that because explosives and nuclear weapons are restricted from private ownership that it means firearms can also be reasonably restricted.

But there are a few things they aren’t taking into account when making such an assertion.

The problem with nuclear weapons, and why I believe they can be reasonably and severely restricted even with the Second Amendment, is one of containment. If I fail to properly contain my ammunition, I put only myself in danger. If I fail to properly contain a nuclear weapon, there’s a much higher risk of collateral damage. Yes I’m sure you can probably conjure a ton of "what if" scenarios in which improperly contained ammunition can pose a danger to others beside myself, but in general, improperly contained ammunition will be strictly a problem for me and those within close proximity of that ammunition.

Further, discharging firearms in general has a limited impact, even when you’re talking about someone walking through a shopping mall or school with an AR-15. Unintentionally discharging a firearm also has a limited impact. Detonating a nuclear weapon, even unintentionally? Not so limited. When an accident has the potential to destroy half a city (or in my case, likely the equivalent of the entirety of the suburb where I reside), the government has a legitimate reason to step in.

I also live in an apartment building, so even owning a small explosive can pose a danger to the other residents in my building and in the adjacent building.

Now if I live out in the middle of nowhere where my nearest neighbor is a mile away (or more), then owning small explosives will only be a problem for my household if they unintentionally detonate. But even out there, unintentionally detonating a nuclear weapon would still pose dangers to others, even if they’re outside the immediate blast radius.

In other words, the mere existence of the nuclear weapon or explosive does pose a clear danger to others outside my household simply from the risk, however slight, of an unintentional detonation. The same, however, cannot be said of firearms and ammunition.

Politics

Response from Senator Roy Blunt

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Thank you for contacting me regarding the continued atrocities in Syria.

Since the conflict began more than two years ago, more than 110,000 Syrians have died, and millions more have been displaced from their homes. On August 21, 2013, President Bashar Assad’s regime launched a chemical weapons attack which killed 1,429 people, more than 400 of whom were children. This confirmed attack is in addition to previous suspected instances of chemical warfare by the Syrian government against its people.

The attack was abhorrent, and the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, but the conflict in Syria demands presidential leadership and international cooperation that we have not yet seen.  The President has asked Congress to endorse a ‘shot across the bow’ approach and has said that Assad will stay in place while a political solution is sought, which stands in contrast to his statement more than two years ago that Assad must ‘step aside.’

After careful consideration and a number of briefings on this topic, I believe this strategy and the unknown response it may provoke are the wrong thing to do, and I will not support the resolution the President has asked for. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue to closely monitor this situation.

Politics

Response from Representative Sam Graves

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Thank you for contacting me regarding the ongoing situation in Syria. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and his oppressive regime have been responsible for the death of over 100,000 Syrian citizens since calls for his removal began intensifying in the spring of 2011. I strongly condemn the regime and all those nations who choose to stand behind Syria’s violent leader throughout this tragic situation.

Our main national security interest in the region must be preventing chemical and biological weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists. With this said, according to some estimates, at least 50 percent of the various rebel groups fighting the Assad government have al-Qaeda or jihadist elements within them. Therefore, any action that destabilizes the current regime means that chemical weapons could fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, which would be devastating for our interests in the region. 

It is essential that the president come to Congress before initiating any military action. The Constitution is quite clear on this (Art. I, Sect. 8), and I believe the president made a big mistake not seeking congressional approval before we took action against Libya.  He should not repeat that mistake now.  Any efforts we take against Syria must be granted legitimacy by following the Constitution and seeking Congress’ approval.

I support the strictest sanctions possible in order to end the violence in Syria. While I do not rule out limited military involvement as a means to end the violence, this is not a situation in which U.S. strategic interests are directly at stake, and thus we must closely and carefully monitor the developments as they unfold. We must always proceed with extreme caution when putting the lives of our nation’s brave armed service men and women at risk, and always be vigilant against arming foreign combatants when we know little about their backgrounds.