Why we must never allow the 2nd Amendment to be infringed upon

December 8, 2013

Why I'm opposed to gun control

One of the ideas for supporting gun control we hear concerns the word "militia" being used in the 2nd Amendment. Anti-gun advocates claim this word clearly shows the only Constitutionally approved ownership of firearms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment must be connected to the owner serving in a state militia--period.

In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008 and 2010, affirmed “individuals” right to own firearms cannot be constrained by either state or federal laws, or by requiring membership in a militia. So, this particular basis for supporting gun ownership restrictions is simply opinion and is a moot point which has no basis in law. Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us think as individuals, or if we do or don't agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law which we must all obey. The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefor, if individuals or groups don't agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an Amendment.

Many of our founders' historical writings make it clear they supported the 2nd Amendment primarily to assure our future citizens would be able to protect themselves and our nation from a rogue federal government. A global history of atrocities by evil dictators since our Constitution was written has proven how wise they were, and it's why we must never allow any group, no matter how well-intended, to ever weaken in any way the legal rights of a law-abiding American citizens to own firearms.

America has less risk than many other nations of an evil leader being tempted to enslave our people--but, it's primarily because of the high level of firearms ownership by our citizens. Any evil despot wannabe would know America currently has around 80 million citizens who own nearly 300 million firearms. He/she also know the chances of winning a guerrilla war against this huge number of highly motivated and well-armed defenders of liberty without destroying the entire nation would be quite small.

In the past hundred years or so tens of millions of innocent humans have been tragically murdered by their own evil leaders in places like China, Russia, Germany, and Cambodia, among others. This can only be guaranteed to be prevented here if we doggedly resist all attempts to weaken in any way honest citizens rights to own firearms.

The following statistics provide a logical reason to oppose any ban on honest citizen's rights to own semi-automatic rifles...which gun control advocates incorrectly label “military assault weapons”.

Begin by examining the FBI U.S. Crimes website for 2011. You will find of the 12,664 homicides by all causes committed in 2011 (last year available), only 323 were committed by long rifles of any kind. Knives were used nearly 1700 times, hands/fists/feet over 700 times, and hammers/clubs 500. Yet, gun control advocates remain focused on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines as their main target. Why? Given the above statistics, how does that make any sense? If these advocates were successful in removing semi-automatic rifles...the reduction in homicides would be almost non-existent. Do you think they don't understand these facts? The only possible reason for advocating such a first step is because it is just that--a first step toward eventually removing the 2nd Amendment rights of all honest law-abiding American adults to own any firearms.

As additional evidence to support overall gun ownership freedom, a recent report from the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics, showed between 1993 and 2011 America had a nearly 50% reduction in gun homicides. Have criminals and the insane simply become kinder and gentler? Or, is it possible broader gun ownership by honest citizens is a major factor?

I actually wish most honest, law-abiding adult Americans owned and were trained to use firearms in order to protect their families and their fellow citizen's freedom.

Frankly, I can't understand reasonable people not rejecting the focus on weapons in the gun violence arguments, and instead acknowledging criminals and crazy people are the real killers. Let's focus our energy on improving identification, diagnosis, and treatment for the mentally ill. Let's create and enforce more severe penalties for gun use by criminals. Too much evidence proves gun ownership by honest citizens is simply not the real cause of firearm tragedies.

Finally, we ought to consider the highest incidence of homicides by guns in America are in the places which currently have the strictest gun control laws. Chicago is the perfect example.

Mike Tower

American supermarkets not customer focused

December 1, 2013

Supermarkets don't make it easy

Have you noticed the increasing time and effort it seems to take to shop in most modern supermarkets? I'm guessing most of these chains have signs in their corporate offices proclaiming their number one goal is to serve customers. However, all evidence suggests most of their activities are aimed at maximizing the store's short-term financial performance by encouraging customers to buy stuff they didn't intend to buy when they entered the store.

It's apparent the folks in charge of store operations for most grocery chains have made a science of laying out stores to ensure every customer who enters will walk past as many product categories and displays as possible. None of this is done to make shopping easier on customers. In fact, success is measured by the extra distance customers cover once they walk thorough the front doors, and, more important, how how much extra stuff they buy along the way.

When you enter a modern super-market, you usually encounter barriers intended to guide you on the path they want you to take. The foodstuff staples such as milk, meat, dairy, and bread are placed in opposite sections of the store. Then, the highest profit margin items are placed on shelves at average eye level and lower margin items on the lower and higher shelves. I'm willing to bet all super markets have corporate staffs whose sole function is to develop computer programs designed to maximize customer spending. Perhaps these programs have names such as, "sales maximizer" or "empty their wallets".

Over the past couple of years, my wife and I have begun to notice entire categories of products suddenly relocated. It's obvious "sales maximizer" programs have discovered relocating items will result in customers spending even more time in the store looking for the new location of items regularly purchased, and assure they will walk past even more displays of impulse purchase items.

Physicians should ask patients complaining about memory loss if they first noticed the problem after recently shopping at a super market? I find myself too often going to a specific location for an item I have purchased in the past, only to find it missing, and then wonder if I'm losing it! Thankfully my basic understanding of modern corporate businesses reminds me I am once again being led around by the nose to help lighten my wallet.

"Sales maximizer" understands when a customer cannot find an item, they will initially wonder around trying to read aisle signs for help. When that doesn't work they have to then travel even further trying to find a store employee to ask. Of course, all of this makes you wonder all over the store as planned...and guess what...your shopping cart magically ends up with stuff you never even thought about buying when you first walked in the front door.

The best part of the process comes when the check-out person usually smiles and asks: "were you able to find everything you wanted?" I usually answer, "no I did I not find everything I wanted but, I sure did buy stuff I didn't intend to." Not once has the clerk stopped smiling.

I am not blaming Super markets for trying to maximize their bottom line...I'm just tired of them sapping my energy and causing me think I'm developing dementia in the process. I'm actually surprised they haven't found a way to charge extra for the exercise program!

The more serious question I would pose is: Why don't the folks who run these supermarkets try to increase customer loyalty the old fashioned way--treating people as valued customers by providing pleasant shopping experiences designed to make them want to come back, instead of mainly laying out stores to make sure customers end up tired and poorer when they depart. It really doesn't take a genius to understand why Walmart is literally eating the lunch of most grocery chains. They don't treat customers special either, but they have a reputation for charging less for the shopping pain.

I don't think American supermarkets will ever win a price war with Walmart; but they would have a chance to survive and prosper by better serving their customers--from the customer's perspective. Sadly, this would require something that is missing among senior management for most large publicly traded organizations these days--long range thinking.

My suggestion to the corporate management of these chains would be to begin by asking their customers what they like and dislike about shopping in their stores.

Please understand this article is not intended to portray the folks who manage or work in any local super markets in a negative light. If anything, it is their unwavering friendly service which makes shopping while hanging upside down as one's wallet or purse is being emptied even somewhat bearable.

Mike Tower