Ammon Bundy and his merry men vs. the Sheriff of Malheur (Part 2) Why don't officials oust Oregon occupiers?

There was a good article by Maxine Berstein, in the Wednesday edition of The Oregonian – titled ‘Why don’t officials try to oust Oregon occupiers?’  An interesting and relevant question to ask.  Furthermore, it appears that many residents in and around Burns, Oregon, and those in close proximity to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, are wondering the same thing.  I, too, wonder.

I’ve been to the Refuge area – just last summer in fact – spent about four days over there.  It was beautiful, prairie-like and remote – great place for bird watching and catching a glimpse of wild mustangs.  Oh, and one other thing, the best hamburger I can recall having was served to me at the Diamond Hotel, located in the very small town of Diamond.

Environmental conditions at the Wildlife Refuge can be bitterly cold this time of year – life threatening if one is exposed to the elements.  Currently, roadblocks could be tough duty for the law enforcement personnel assigned, but possible.  Controlling access from all directions into the Refuge, including overland access, nearly impossible.  That said, the current weather is a contributing factor in controlling most access to the Refuge buildings.  That will last until the cold temperatures ease-off in late February or March.  However, when spring arrives – if nothing is done by law enforcement – the current take-over of the Refuge could become a regular three-ring circus, with people arriving from all over the country to join the festivities.

So what could /should be done?  Law enforcement has to gradually take control.  Accordingly, local access has to be restricted.  How?  I would suggest that access to the Refuge by reporters or some others would require a permit from law enforcement.  The area around the Refuge, say approximately one square mile should be designated ‘No Trespassing,’ and that authorized access would only be granted with a permit.  This would put the authorities back in some semblance of control.  Now, it seems to appear that law enforcement is uncertain, indecisive and helpless – that Ammon Bundy is in the driver’s seat.

What if someone enters without a permit?  Well, this is not a perfect system; but some efforts need to be made to identify trespassers.  This might require a continuing law enforcement presence in the area to monitor roads.  Have the National Guard set up some temporary facilities so that law enforcement personnel, monitoring the roads, can have some comforts and protection from the elements on a 24 hour basis.

Overflights with cameras might be another option.  What about satellite monitoring?  If, nonetheless, some individuals insist upon entering, even when advised not to, or actually sneak in, those individuals would be subsequently cited for trespass and face arrest upon leaving the occupied Refuge area.

I would suggest that some reporters be given a permit and allowed to enter the Refuge and talk to Bundy and his associates – allow Bundy a voice – as well as to monitor conditions inside.  I would suggest that basic comfort supplies be allowed to enter the Refuge with a permit – food, clothing, etc.  I would suggest that no guns or ammunition or liquor be allowed to pass the checkpoint.

Of course, the other option is sitting back and hoping Ammon Bundy and his associates get tired and go home – before hundreds of people converge on the area in the spring – to include Bundy supporters, various militia members and survialists, tourists, mental cases, you name it.

In the meantime, without some action on the part of law enforcement (other than talk) there is a high probability that other facilities will be taken over.  Come spring, the real fun could begin.

True Nelson

Ammon Bundy and his merry men vs. the Sheriff of Malheur (Part 1)

Am I the only one who can’t make heads or tails about what Ammon Bundy is attempting to accomplish with the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration building.  Yes, I’ve read the newspaper articles; but to me it still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  And, when you take over federal property, attempting to intimidate the authorities with guns, doesn’t that make you a ‘terrorist’ (if at very least a terrorist with a small ‘t’)?  Perhaps, if Bundy could boil his demands down to a brief, coherent, published manifesto, we could all think it over.

It really is kind of funny.  Did you see the picture, today, of the armed militant with the Pacific Patriots Network on the front page of the Oregonian newspaper?  Boy, that guy is right out of central casting for a Chevy Chase movie.  Question:  Do any of these guys have actual jobs?  Yes, of course, that’s none of my business.

On the other hand, I completely understand that this whole matter could suddenly turn deadly serious (Wounded Knee, Waco and Ruby Ridge).

As an FBI Agent, I spent a couple of months at Wounded Knee and have some knowledge of what a siege situation is like and how it can turn from bad to worse.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not entirely on the government’s side.  They have dictated, encroached and overly regulated entirely too much on property rights.  I could go on for a good while – potentially boring every reader into a coma.

It could be said that the federal government’s regulations put the Oregon timber industry out of business.  Towns dried up and died.  Good paying jobs were lost.  Why?  Because some egg-head back East decided that a former worker in an Oregon plywood mill could just as easily subsist on the salary he potentially could make at McDonalds or Jiffy Lube.  And, or, he could go to a community college at age 50 and learn how to become a plumber’s assistant.

Oh, and, whatever happened to the Spotted Owl?  It’s living happily in the virgin Oregon forests I would assume.

I worked many years for a large forest products company as their Western Region Security Manager.  As a corporate employee, I was headquartered in Portland and was responsible for eleven western states.  But, let’s just take Oregon for example.  When I started with the company there were 10 or 12 mills, plus various facilities and timber operations throughout Oregon with literally thousands of employees with pretty darn good jobs.  As my own ‘early retirement’ grew near, I happened to be the last employee with the company still in Oregon.  I had been retained to provide a security presence for all the closures and terminations.

Regarding the Malheur imbroglio, I have some thoughts on what law enforcement and the FBI are probably now thinking.  Top of the list almost certainly:  ‘Let’s not let this situation blow up in our faces.’  To use a metaphor, it’s a carefully orchestrated dance.  The FBI provides the music for now, but Ammon Bundy is leading.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Mark Zuckerberg / Facebook Billionaire / Extends Invitation / Muslims Welcome Here!

Interesting recent comment from Mark Zuckerberg (compassionate to a fault and incidentally a multi-billionaire), he stated:  “… add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here.”

Of course, the rest of us know or should know, that the very gracious Mr. Zuckerberg and his family are continually surrounded by high-tech security systems and armed guards.  So, they don’t (of course) share all the same concerns as the majority of Americans regarding potential terrorist attacks.

Moreover, Facebook is a business requiring massive participation from people who have little else to do with their time.  And, there are billions of Muslims out there who are current or potential customers. Ka-Ching!

Zuckerberg has extended an invitation for them to come here.  With all his money, why doesn’t he go and live there?

True Nelson

Syed Rizwan Farook's father describes his son's beliefs. And no surprise there.

Have you ever noticed, that in almost every instance when there is a ‘terrorist attack,’ relatives and friends of the perpetrator invariably say something like:  ‘Gosh, I never noticed anything unusual about him.’  This, of course, is self-serving, even logical.  After all, no one wants to admit that the person they knew gave indications that he (or she in the most recent tragedy) was a danger to themselves and to others.  Who wants to be ridiculed by the news media, for not doing something to prevent the murder of innocent people?

So, it was interesting and highly unusual to read some of the statements by Syed Rizwan Farook (father of the San Bernardino terrorist of the same name, Syed Rizwan Farook).  The elder Farook was interviewed by an Italian reporter with the publication La Stampa.

• "He (the father) said he (the terrorist Syed) shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel, the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of his other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.”
• "I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist, the elder Farook told the newspaper.  Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."
• “The father said his family was destroyed when his son sided against him with his equally religious mother.  Rizwan was the mama's boy (the father said), and she is very religious like him.  Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.”

As recent as last night, the President reiterated that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’  OK, I guess it depends upon one’s own interpretation.  I’m not sure where the President got his interpretation of fundamentalist Islam; but maybe he is just telling us what he wants us to believe – you know, keep the lid on things until he can exit stage right (or left).

True Nelson

Mass Murder by Islamic Terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik / San Bernardino, California 12/2/15

San Bernardino, California:  The mass murder by Islamic terrorists (Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik) is on everyone’s minds.  It’s the hot topic of discussion around the proverbial watercooler.  In fact I had a lengthy discussion with friends this morning at coffee.  The San Bernardino situation, chaotic at first, is beginning to come into focus.  I’d just like to make a couple of comments.

Working in corporate security, after leaving the FBI, ‘workplace violence’ prevention was always a priority of my job.  The Fortune 100 Company that I worked for at the time sent me to the best schools and seminars on the subject.  Seminars that were presented by prominent psychiatrists and experienced law enforcement personnel.  I learned a lot.

When the first reports of the shooting in San Bernardino were released, it was immediately clear the incident was a terrorist act and not ‘workplace violence.’  If it had been workplace violence, it would have been an action entirely without precedent.  Law enforcement knew this.  The FBI knew this.  It kind of surprised me – no not really I guess – that initially the Obama administration and indirectly the Justice Department and the FBI (to a certain extent) parsed words – hoping, I imagine, that it was workplace violence; and not a terrorist attack.

Why?  Simply put:  ‘Workplace Violence’ is a finite event.  A ‘terrorist attack’ is an infinite event, far more serious, and lacking in any clear resolution.  A ‘terrorist attack’ is a symptom, an indicator of more to come.

The only other thing I would like to mention, at this time, is extending my sincere compliments to law enforcement for their competent and courageous handling of this tragic situation.  Very well done.  Something to tell your grandkids about.  You not only stopped these terrorists, but undoubtedly prevented some other equally devastating events planned by Farook and Malik.

True Nelson

An Apology about my Previous Post / “President Obama, you are wrong!”

If you read my previous post (prior to my subsequent correction), you will have noted that I obviously confused Serbia with Syria.  I was attempting to state my personal, and I believe justifiable, opinion that Syrian Christian refugees should be given priority for admission to the United States.

I don’t, of course, have an editor to read my stuff.  I was tired and grand-kids were visiting.  Grandchildren have a way of disturbing one’s focus – as most grandparents could attest.  That said, I referred to Serbia rather than Syria.  I do know the difference.  And, I have corrected the error.

As an aside, Serbia’s population is approximately 90% Christian.  To my knowledge they are not being persecuted because of their faith – as is the case in Syria.

In addition to my apology for maligning the wrong country, someone close to me said that my comments about President Obama were unkind and just plain mean, and that I shouldn’t have said them.  Said someone might be right.  Barrack Obama is currently the President and deserving of due respect.  However...

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

True Nelson

President Obama, you are wrong! Syrian Christian refugees should be given first priority.

I disagree with the President.  We should give priority to Christians fleeing persecution in Syria. And I’ll tell you why.

I suppose that I should say, up front, that I am an Agnostic (with some spiritual tendencies I suppose).  Oh, I know, no one particularly cares; but it does give a certain frame of reference to my comments.

First, I’m convinced that Americans will face increased security risks with the importation of Syrian refuges.  Some say 10,000 Syrian refugees.  Some say 100,000 or more.  And, yes, there will be some radical Muslim extremists among them – no doubt about that.  ISIS will use the refugee situation as an opportunity to import terrorists (sleepers) who will strike when the opportunity presents itself.  Come on, think about it, why wouldn’t they?  Americans are generally pretty gullible, hobbled by their penchant for political correctness – and ISIS is well aware of that fact.  On the positive side for us, this situation will be far worse for the Europeans.

Why should Christians receive priority?  Well, we are basically a Judeo-Christian nation – and have been since our founding.  Moreover, United States Law gives priority to those refugees fleeing religious persecution.  Who has suffered the most, been murdered, tortured, raped and enslaved by ISIS solely due to their religious belief?  Yes, of course, the Christians.  Are not they the ones we should help first?  The President has said such ‘discrimination’ would be against everything that the United States stands for.  He is wrong.

Can Syrian Christians be positively verified as such?  I’m not sure, but I believe they (Syrian Christians) are fairly clannish and have been generally residing in certain areas of Syria.  Someone, probably a Syrian expert, could probably identify a Christian refugee – as opposed to a Muslim refugee.  Should this be an absolute qualifier for refugee status and admission to the U.S.?  No, some Muslims, principally parents with children, should also be considered for admission after appropriate vetting – a second priority.  Unaccompanied Muslim men between approximately 20 and 50 years of age should be the last priority for admission to the U.S.

I heard the comment bandied-about that 23 million Americans believe that President Barrack Obama is a Muslim.  I don’t know where they dug-up that statistic; but let’s just say that the statistic is true.  I don’t happen to believe the President is a Muslim.  On the other hand, I don’t happen to believe he is a Christian.  Being perceived as a Christian was just one more concession the President had to make in order to pursue his political ambitions.  No, my opinion is that when the President thinks about a higher-being, he simply looks in the mirror.

True Nelson

'Gun Control' / Why Discuss? / Nobody is Listening

After reading an article in the LA Times by Jonathan Zimmerman – well, it really caused me to pause and consider.

What so impressed me about Dr. Zimmerman’s (who is a professor at New York University) article?  It was interesting, about ‘gun control,’ and a little bit different take.  Dr. Zimmerman made the observation that whether you’re a gun advocate or a gun control proponent, we are generally wasting our time attempting to argue the finer points of the ‘gun control’ issue.  In other words, nobody is listening – certainly no one whose views are the opposite of yours.  He compared the ‘gun control’ issue with ‘Prohibition.’

Zimmerman said:

“… a book by a University of California – San Diego sociologist named Joseph Gusfield convinced me that Prohibition wasn’t really aimed at ridding America of beer, wine and whiskey.  It was instead a ‘Symbolic Crusade’ by native-born Protestants, who seized on prohibition to affirm their historic dominance over immigrants and Roman Catholics.”

“… this controversy isn’t really about guns, any more than Prohibition was about drink.  It’s about different ways of seeing the world and – most of all – about who will gain the symbolic upper hand.”

“The question brings us back to Gusfield, who reminded us that politics are a battle for symbolic as well as material advantage.  Even if alcohol prohibition could never make America ‘dry,’ it made its adherents feel as if the country was still theirs.”

If this is true, and it may very well be true, there is no point for me to belabor the many issues and potential problems associated with gun control.  After all, no one, other than some in the choir, are listening to me anyway.

Nonetheless, I’d still like to make a couple of comments.  And, oh yes, I wanted to tell you why I left the NRA.

• You can't ban 'assault weapons' if you can't define what they are.  They are basically a semi-automatic rifle.  The simple description of  'military style' just won't cut it.
• Were you aware that rifles are seldom used in crime - maybe two percent of the time - if that?  Assault weapons, whatever your definition, are hardly ever used.
• High capacity magazines could be banned, but they are even less commonly used in crime – particularly in a rifle.  Semi-automatic pistols often hold 10 to 14 rounds.  To reduce that capacity would require a redesign, and ‘grandfathering’ millions of pre-existing pistols.  Any legislation along those lines would have minimal effect on crime.  Moreover, ammo magazines can be switched within a matter of seconds.
• Background checks on all gun sales is theoretically possible; but there is no evidence said action would have a meaningful effect on crime.  Gun owners, to sell guns, would be at the mercy of gun stores; and they could, potentially cheat, or extract maximum profits from average gun owners who are attempting to comply with the law when selling a gun.  It would, as a result, create a gun ‘black market’ even larger than the one that already exists.
• Universal gun registration would cause a civil upheaval bigger than prohibition.  Honest citizens would become criminals.  And current criminals would benefit all around, be emboldened, and undeterred in their previous activities.
• Bottom line:  The real answer is strict enforcement of the current law.  Note my blog’s sidebar – Three Laws for Effective Gun Control.

Why I left the NRA:  The NRA was running a quarter page advertisement for a ‘Street Sweeper,’ large capacity ammo-drum shotgun (depicted above) in their monthly magazine.  This gun has only one purpose, anti-personnel.  It cannot be used for hunting or any sporting events that I’m aware of.  It was extremely poor taste on the part of the NRA in that the ‘Street Sweeper’ would only appeal to someone who is, in my opinion, a few bricks short of a load.  Should it be banned?  I guess it could be said that it is no more deadly than a regular shotgun.  I just felt the ad was over-the-top offensive; and I couldn’t believe the NRA needed the advertising money that badly.  I just wasn’t sure that I could even be a fringe member of the organization – until, that is, the NRA starts exercising at least a modicum of discretion.

True Nelson

Umpqua Community College Mass Murder (Part 6) / 'Assault Weapons'

Relevant to some recent school shootings, my topic for this posting is ‘Assault Weapons.’

This is a subject that drives gun owners right up the wall.  Why? Because ‘assault weapons’ have become such an over-worked cliché generally bandied-about by those, including politicians proposing laws, who cannot define what they are actually talking about.

To describe 'assault weapons' simply as ‘military type’ guns only exposes the lack of knowledge of the speaker.  All guns have a military genesis – all guns.  Guns were initially invented and developed to kill people in war; and it was only later that they were used for hunting and sport.  And, one could say the same about any number of common devices in use today, as well as some domestic animals; all of which were first and principally developed and promoted for the purpose of human conflict.

Generally speaking, I hope we all understand that many guns are already banned or not available to the American public.  Some of these can be obtained or displayed under very restrictive conditions and licensing standards.  All automatic weapons are banned.  What does that mean?  Well, an automatic weapon is generally a rifle type weapon (could be a pistol) that fires more than one round (a burst) ‘automatically’ when you pull the trigger.  In other words a ‘machine gun.’

Some in the public are familiar with the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun from movies of the ‘gangster era,’ (Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, and Baby Face Nelson.)*    In this context, it is sufficient to know that ‘machine guns’ (automatic weapons), of all varieties, have been banned for many decades – as they should be.  In more recent times, for reference purposes, the military version M-16 is an ‘automatic.’  That, too, is generally banned – not sold, and not legal to possess.

What is legal?  Well, ‘semi-automatic’ rifles, pistols and shotguns are legal to possess.  What does that mean?  ‘Semi-automatic’ is one trigger pull, one round fires (self-loading).  Some might immediately respond, ‘So what, it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.’  Yes, you are right in that regard.  However, the point is that semi-automatic weapons have been around for approximately 150 years and have been commonly used for hunting and sport most of that time.

The military’s M-16 (fully automatic) has a civilian counterpart called the AR-15 (semi-automatic rifle).  They look the same, but they are not.  Many hunters like the AR-15 for various reasons – principally for its durability.  On the other hand, most hunters would prefer other semi-automatic rifles and/or shotguns for their craftsmanship, quality, and performance.

So, what is the difference between the present-day, civilian-owned, so-called ‘assault weapon’ and other semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols?  Functionally, there is no difference.  It is all about cosmetics.  All have the same ‘killing’ potential in the hands of a mentally deranged shooter.

What then is the argument against civilian owned ‘assault weapons?’  Well, basically, there is no valid argument.  Unless, you are talking about an illegal bootleg, modified, or stolen military weapon.

If you are a gun control advocate, and a gun owner should ask you why you hold a position against guns, in an attempt to engage you in civil discourse, be prepared to answer coherently.  Please don’t automatically use the vague, meaningless statement, ‘We should ban all 'assault weapons’ or, even worse, in my opinion, ‘We should ban all guns.’  If this is the sum of your incoherent comment, you will only have accomplished exposing your lack of understanding of the issues, or dare I say your ignorance.

Magazine capacity for semi-automatics is another issue.  And here, in my opinion, gun control advocates have a valid argument.  We’ll talk more about this.

Addendum:  Above Photo:  Top is a common semi-auto hunting rifle.  Bottom is the semi-auto AR-15.

True Nelson

* Baby Face Nelson is no relation, I’m happy to say, – his actual name was Lester Joseph Gillis; and he was responsible for the murder of three FBI Agents.  Gillis was later killed by FBI Agents in a shootout.  If you had lived in that period, and happened to meet Gillis, you would have required a ‘death wish’ to address him as Baby Face.  He did not like that nickname.  It was given him, reportedly, because of his small stature and child-like face.  The Nelson part was due to an alias he once used.

Umpqua Community College Mass Murder (Part 5) / 'The Second Amendment to the Constitution'

Regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is basically what you should have learned in High School Civics’ class ‘if you had been paying attention.’

The first ten amendments, known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were designed to protect a citizen’s individual rights.  They are rights or protections guaranteed to us as individuals.  Read them and you will understand why they are individual rights and how each of ten is important to you and me.  If you’ve never read the ‘Bill of Rights,’ please do.

The Second Amendment is pretty straightforward – or is it?  Personally, I think it is.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Many in the public (principally those who support stricter regulatory gun control measures) point to the first part of the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”  They say that our Founding Fathers’ intention, in modern terms, was referring to what we now call the National Guard, and not giving any special rights to citizen gun owners.  However, that is not the case; and, thus far anyway, the U.S. Supreme Court concurs.  The Second Amendment is an individual right, as are the other nine amendments within the Bill of Rights.  The important defining clause is the subsequent wording within the Second Amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The Founding Fathers could not have stated it more clearly.  Remember, the Bill of Rights were meant as protection for the individual citizen, not to create an additional branch of the Army, which is exactly what our National Guard has become.

But, one might argue, they are basically citizens and part-time warriors – under the control of the Governor of each state; therefore defining a ‘well-regulated Militia.’  OK, I’d say to that, rhetorically speaking, what if a Governor said, ‘I’m not going to send my state’s young men and women into combat.’  The Federal Government’s response:  ‘I’m not asking you if you wouldn’t mind sending your National Guard unit, I’m telling you to send them without delay – or else!’

And, if you follow these issues and the many combat deployments required of the National Guard these days, you would realize that the U.S. Government is depending more and more on the Reserve and Guard units to fight wars.

Some in the public, I suppose, might read the Second Amendment as an opportunity for the Federal Government to bolster their military might in all respects, including overseas deployment and combat.  OK, but can you honestly say that interpretation has anything to do with the individual rights of a citizen?  On the contrary, you would have to say that the Second Amendment, of the First Ten Amendments, is the outlier and the only one that does not apply to the individual; and is in fact a right given to the government over its’ citizens.  But, if you were to say that, you would be wrong.

True Nelson

Umpqua Community College Mass Murder (Part 4) / 'Security Improvements'

I have spent much of my professional career conducting security reviews at numerous facilities, including addressing some security issues at schools.  Admittedly, most of my experience was at manufacturing, distribution, and office complex locations.  And, I must admit that I have never visited Umpqua Community College, but I do have some suggestions for their administration based on my experiences.

Contrary to their current status, unarmed security personnel at the college is a mistake.  Although the school may feel that the concept of unarmed security protects them, in some way, from potential liability situations, it does not provide any actual ‘security.’

For consideration:  The Clackamas Community College, south of Portland, has ‘armed security.’  The Clackamas County Sheriff has had the good sense to ‘deputize’ security personnel at said community college, and allow them to participate in appropriate training.  Why doesn’t the Sheriff in Douglas County do the same?

It is my opinion all colleges (and I would include elementary through high schools), throughout the State, should be gun-free zones (no ‘open carry,’ no ‘concealed carry’) unless special authorization is given to a particular individual.  I professionally carried a gun on my person for several years and know that it can be a considerable hassle to maintain and protect.  In my opinion, ‘open carry,’ where allowed, is just an accident waiting to happen.  In addition, someone openly carrying a gun could be quickly and easily disarmed – the gun then used on its owner and others.  ‘Concealed carry’ has many of the same issues as ‘open carry.’  Those with ‘concealed carry permits’ should probably be allowed to keep guns in their cars, but not allowed to carry on campus.  Guns appearing on campus should set-off an immediate lock-down, security notified, local law enforcement summoned.

Many things can be done to improve security on campus – and there are improvements that are relatively easy and inexpensive.  Locks on classroom and office doors, plus ‘panic alarms’ are some examples - video surveillance another.  A full analysis by a qualified security consultant would be helpful.  (This is not a solicitation for business.  I am now retired.)  Schools often depend upon local law enforcement to conduct a security review.  Local law enforcement is a cheaper alternative.  Unfortunately, they are generally not qualified to do this sort of analysis, and are usually not current on potentially useful technology.

One procedure that proved beneficial in the business realm was a ‘hotline.’  This would be a dedicated number that faculty or students could call (24 hours a day), remain anonymous, and report concerns about security issues.  These reports need to be thoroughly investigated and evaluated.

In the long run, certainly not a quick fix, colleges should consider how security might be improved in their newer facilities and campus renovations.  Card access to certain areas might be one suggestion; focused ingress and egress another.

The Umpqua Community College murders, as tragic as they were, will probably never be repeated there in our lifetimes; at least I hope not.  We have to be realistic about these incidents and recognize that they are exceedingly rare, that there are no easy answers, and no guarantees.  Life is sometimes dangerous and unforgiving.  Every security measure conceivable would probably not have prevented the deaths at the college.

However, there is one aspect that haunts me.  Chris Harper Mercer didn’t crawl out from under a rock.  People knew him, socialized with him, and lived with him.  Chances are that he was receiving some form of psychiatric assistance.  Someone knew or suspected he was potentially dangerous.  That someone failed to report those suspicions.  Even more likely, if there was such a person, they would say, ‘OK, report it to whom?’  Asked that question, my answer would be, ‘I don’t know.’  Some might suggest reporting it to local law enforcement.  That person is unfamiliar with law enforcement and how it works, how it prioritizes their responsibilities.

For example, take a walk down Portland streets.  You will see countless mentally handicapped, drug-addled people hanging-out on corners, begging, or sleeping under bridges.  Are most of them dangerous?  Probably not.  Are some of them dangerous – if triggered by an inexplicable, perhaps an innocuous situation or slight?  Yes, without doubt.  What are we doing about it?  Nothing!

True Nelson

Gun Violence (Part 3) Umpqua Community College Mass Murder / 'Gun Lovers' vs. 'Gun Haters'

Regarding the renewed efforts / public demands for additional gun legislation (gun control) as a result of the murders at the Umpqua Community College, I would like to address some of the comments that are used to attack gun advocates and owners; often put forth in, what I consider to be, an uninformed and often a most condescending way.

I am a gun owner.  I like to shoot guns.  I like the craftsmanship that goes into a quality gun; and understand why some people collect them.  Moreover, I think guns still play a positive role in our society in hunting, sport and family protection.  Are they misused?  Yes, of course.

I was once a hunter, but I guess it has been a few decades since I last hunted.  There was a pivotal moment.  I remember it well.  I came home with a couple of pheasants that I had shot earlier in the day, laid them out on some newspapers and prepared to ‘clean’ them.  My young daughter came to see what I was doing.  Her comment was, “Daddy, did you have to kill them?”  I still remember that moment and the look on her sad face.  I didn’t answer.  I couldn’t.  If I had answered, I would have had to say, ‘No honey, I didn’t.  I’m sorry.’  But, that was it.  I was a hunter no longer.  And, I must say that I haven’t missed it much.  Oh, there is something to be said about the comradeship and excitement of hunting.  But now, I’m thrilled when a pheasant walks through my back yard.  I grab my binoculars.  Pheasants are after all beautiful birds.  I’m not against hunting you understand.  It’s just a personal thing with me.

There are considerable (perhaps unbridgeable) differences between ‘gun advocates’ and the ‘gun control crowd.’  Personally, I’ve fielded more than a few disparaging comments in the guise of good-natured kidding.  It’s uncomfortable when you are surrounded by like-minded ‘gun control’ people – particularly those who know little or nothing about guns.  Have you noticed that in a group everyone resorts to ‘bumper-sticker’ logic (or lack thereof)?  Statement:  “We should ban assault weapons!”  Counter Statement:  “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.”  OK, I realize the last comment would be a rather long ‘bumper-sticker,’ but you get the idea.

Regarding the Umpqua Community College shooting, were you surprised at how quickly the politicians jumped in to politicize the actions of a psychopathic killer, and then blame it largely on guns?  I wasn’t.  My immediate thought, ‘shameful.’  But, as we well know, most politicians were born unable to feel shame.  That’s why they became politicians.

The following are some of my favorite discussion points regarding ‘gun control.’  Stick with me, you might find that I am somewhat of a moderate and could / would be receptive to some compromising, and additional legislation.  Oh, and why did I resign from the NRA?  I’ll explain.

Here are some topics that I will be discussing from a gun owner’s, gun advocate’s perspective:

• How might security at a school like the Umpqua Community College be improved?
• The Second Amendment and the inceptive clause “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”
• Assault Weapons
• Universal Background Checks
• X-Felons in Possession of Guns
• The United Kingdom and Australia does it, why not us?
• Why I left the NRA

True Nelson