I've been involved in lots of facebook threads, twitter @replies and bar stool discussions about guns and gun control in the wake of the terrible acts that took place in Aurora, Colorado last Friday morning. The victims, their families and all who were in that theater that night are in my prayers and I truly hope that they can be whole again as they recover from this. No one should have to go through what they did.

I'm getting a bit weary of engaging in any more, so I thought I would capture what I've learned here…mainly so I don't forget. My weariness is not because the discussions where difficult – its just that there were so many of them going on at once. The discussions were actually quite enlightening (I avoided any shouting matches).

In case you are a first time reader here (highly doubtful given my recent Google Analytics report, but possible I suppose), a bit about me and guns. I am a gun owner. I am a concealed carry holder and practitioner. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and a member of the 2nd amendment foundation. If that turns you off, feel free to leave. For anyone with an open mind that's left, read on.

The first thing I have concluded about the shootings in Colorado is that we as a nation are more disconnected from each other than ever before. I could blame all sorts of things, but the reality is that it was possible for a seemingly bright graduate student to descend into seeming madness without anyone noticing or if they did notice, without doing anything to intervene. How does that happen?

From this I have concluded that the the most important thing we can do to prevent future mass killings is to start to give a shit about each other again. Really giving a shit. Asking people how they are doing and having it be more than small talk. Stop considering posting on their wall on their birthday to be a sign that you care. Give a small considerate gift at Christmas, not some thoughtless gift card. Take someone out for coffee and leave your smart phone at home. If we don't start caring about each other more and getting more connected, then we all better start wearing body armor and carrying a full battle load everywhere we go because its only going to get worse out there.

The next thing that I have concluded is that I am not as fully prepared as I thought I was. I carry a pistol, spare ammunition, a flashlight (that would have been a necessity for anyone who ignored the no carry signs in the Cinemark if they wanted to even have a chance to stop the shooter) and a knife everywhere I can. I'll never know what it was really like to be in cinema #9 that night, but even trying to imagine, I'm not sure I could have made that shot. Figuring out what was happening, making sure whoever I was with and was around me was safe, seeking cover, identifying the target, making sure I had a clear shot, lining up my sights, press. It's a lot that has to go right. I'll never be 100% sure, but I can go from 30% to 40% and then to 50% sure that I could do something if the need (God forbid) ever arises.

The last thing I have concluded is that me and some of my friends (of the real and Facebook / Twitter variety) have very different views of personal responsibility. I have a lot of reasons to be opposed to new gun laws. They won't work (is there any less Marijuana available today than there was before it was made illegal?), they will only effect those that already follow the law and people can use lots of things besides guns to kill a bunch of people (witness the OKC bombing) to name just a few. But the main one is that I think laws are a "cop out" (pardon the pun).

Passing gun laws shifts responsibility from each individual to provide for their own safety to the government. "If we just pass a law, we'll be safe" is a pretty dangerous way to think IMHO. To be a bit absurd for a moment, if they passed a law against falling off buildings, would you be more likely to start a career as a window washer? Of course not – because we know that gravity will always find a way to work. We have to recognize that evil is the same thing as gravity – its a force of nature. This is a hard thing to admit, but just because its hard, doesn't mean its not true. By passing more gun laws we will be less safe because a certain percentage of the population will consider the problem solved and let their guard down even more. Another percentage of the population will follow the new laws and will be rendered defenseless as a result. Some will continue to have guns and carry anyway – for all the right reasons – and will suffer the consequences if they are "caught". What won't change? The ability for evil to do its work.

If we focus on the means (guns, chemicals, machetes, rocks) rather than the cause (evil manifested in the actions of a person who no one cared enough about to help) we'll never truly solve this problem.

So out of all this what I am going to do? Get some more training. Push myself at the range. Sign up for the Krav Maga class that just started in my area. Move from 30% to 40% and hopefully on to 50% ready to deal with what hopefully never comes my way. Most importantly, I am going to make sure the people around me know I care. Really care. No bullshit.

As for you, if you think this all makes perfect sense then I suggest you do the same.

If are thinking I am a little bit extreme, then at least consider getting your CCDW and a weapon so you can "take it with you if you think you need it" (honestly a terrible idea, but better than nothing).

If you are thinking I am a lot extreme, then at least don't interfere with my ability to take care of myself. If you would prefer to pass the buck to the police (who can't be everywhere), let that be your decision and don't force it on me.

Lastly, if you think I am completely around the bend, at least make sure you show everyone around you that you truly care about them. The life you save might be your own.

Not a lengthy post today since I have over 200 unread emails waiting in my inbox – and that is after deleting all the spam – but I wanted to share some of the reviews I did on Trip Adviser of the places we went and the things we did while on vacation for the past few weeks in Vegas and Utah.  I discovered Trip Adviser while prepping for our European vacation last summer and found it an invaluable resource.  Much the sam way that I find Amazon thebest shopping site because of the reviews, Trip Adviser is the best travel site for the same reason – reviews.  I had always intended to do reviews of the places we went, restaurants we ate at and things we did in Europe last year after I got back – that just never happened.  So this year, I was much more deliberate about doing reviews "in the moment" – usually the same day that we ate / went to the place being reviewed.  It's a small contribution to a great site – but one I feel I needed to make since I got so much from it for free.  And for you smart phone users out there (iOS or Android) make sure to get their app – the location based feature is pure gold.

I'll take some time over the weekend (after the email has been processed, bills have been paid and lawn has been mowed) to get some pictures up and an overall summary of the vacation, but for now, here are my Trip Adviser reviews:

• Blondie's Diner
• Zion Adventure Company
• Paragon Adventures
• Canyon Trail Rides
• Fairyland Loop
• Calf Creek Falls
• Clarke's Restaurant
• Oscar's Cafe
• Buffalo Bistro

It's been said that most of the problems government solves it originally created itself.  I think this is the case on the "gay marriage issue" (quotes used because I although I acknowledge that it is an issue, I don't think it needed to be).  I don't talk about political / religious issues much on this blog (or anywhere else for that matter) – this seems like an easy issue to get started with

Like many of the issues that fill up the modern day news cycle, most reports are focusing on the easy / up front talking points or sound bites: "Obama backs gay marriage" or "Romney reaffirms opposition to gay marriage" and missing the important question: why should it matter at all what the state has to say about marriage at all? 

Since before the founding of the US (and its legal system) the word marriage has been associated with religion, and as we are all taught (or at least used to be) in grade school, one basic tenet of the American form of government is separation of church and state.  From my basic research (OK, a few quick Google searches) it seems that the concept of marriage hasn't always been so closely tied with religion, in fact it seems to have started as more a biological / social construct to give women some security in exchange for "access" and to reduce competition amongst men (presumably after all the desirable women had been married off).  Even the earliest religions, however, co-opted the concept of marriage and made it one of their rituals.  Despite its origins from social or biological sources, marriage had been deeply entrenched in the religious traditions of all those present in what was to become the United States of America in 1776 (and still in the more important date of 1787, which has more to do with the "rules" we are supposed to be living by as Americans). 

So if the precedent was well set the marriage was a religious institution and we are supposed to have separation of church and state, why does it matter now what politicians and bureaucrats think about marriage at all?  Because they violated the principle of separation centuries ago with the creation of the marriage license. As I said in the opening, the state created the problem that the state are now trying to solve.

The concept of the marriage license pre-dates the formation of the Unites States of America by nearly 500 years.  The Church in England (not the state) issued marriage licenses as a way to bypass the previous requirement (that was also mandated by the Church – not the state)  that there be a public waiting period after an announcement of intent to wed.  This allowed for objections to be heard.  The license was intended to be a way for the couple to swear that there were no reasons they should not be married and transfer the obligation of discovery of any issues from the church to the couple.  So far, no problems.

In the early days of the USA, things were largely the same: marriage licenses were issued by the Church.  It was around the time of the civil war (or the war between the states for my southern readers) that the state broke the rules and started messing with religion.  And how did they justify breaking (their own) law?  "General welfare" of course.  From Wikipedia (emphasis added by me):

The requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying (CSK = the nanny state existed in Lincoln's time too).

With the "federalization" of the marriage license the stage was set for the opinion of politicians to matter about marriage.  Subsequent decades saw the creation of books of case law about how marriages are created and dissolved, the instruction of a system of family courts, and the granting of state and corporate benefits based on the legal contractual relationship that was created when people got married under the construct of a state granted marriage license.  The concept of marriage has grown from a couple declaring their intentions before their God and community (whatever form of God that may be – Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Cherokee, Buddhist, etc) to something that includes all of that, but also has massive legal implications.

What follow's is Chris Kelley's simple prescription for solving the marriage "issue" (gay or otherwise): in the immortal words of Dexter Holland "you gotta' keep 'em separated"

Step 1: The state should hand back over all rights to the term marriage to religion.  We should redefine marriage to be just the vows that are taken before God and the community.  Remove ALL legal trappings from the act/ceremony/institution of marriage.  The state doesn't issue baptism, confirmation or bar mitzvah licenses – why should it be able to issue marriage licenses?  Let's leave marriage to the spiritual and the religious and get the state out of it completely.  The biggest benefit of this step would be that it would give complete freedom to each religion to choose and promote its own doctrine.  Even more importantly, the people would have the freedom to choose the religion that matched their beliefs or work to change the doctrine of the religion they choose if it is conflict with their beliefs.

Step 2: Create something else for what is currently the legal side of marriage.  The term 'civil union" gets bandied about – not sure if that's the right name or not, but lets use it since I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head.  Civil unions should be monitored, regulated and even licensed by the state.  They are just another form of contract between two parties and the state has the right to regulate those to ensure proper enforcement of conditions and availability of remediation and penalties should conditions be violated.  The state has no place in dictating who can enter into one of these contracts other than ensuring that both parties are legally able to represent themselves, i.e. that they aren't too young or otherwise mentally undeveloped to understand the terms of the contract.  All of the downstream aspects currently associated with marriage should be the sole domain of the civil union: rights to property in divorce, access to government or corporate benefits while living and access to death benefits / inheritance when one of the parties in the contract passes on.

Step 3: Allow the religious marriage and the civil union to coexist, in parallel but independently with all couples having the ability to choose one, the other, both or neither.  That's right: a man and a woman could decide that all they want is the legal aspects and enter into a civil union – skipping the church, the dress, the flowers, the rings.  Or they could decide that all that they need is a promise before God so they stand in their back yard, say some vows to each other and presto-changeo they are married (they could do the whole church, dress and flowers things too – it makes for great pictures when you get old).  Or they could do both.  Or they could do neither. 

The same options would be available for couples of all configurations.  A man and a man, or a woman and a woman would be able to do all the same things.  If  homosexual couple wanted the contract in place, the state would facilitate that and they could get all of the benefits (and downsides) of the legal relationship.  If they want to be married, they too could exchange some vows in their backyard in front of their God, just like the man/woman couple in the previous examples.  If they are members of a church that doesn't discriminate, they can can do the whole dress, flowers and church thing too. And if they're not they have the freedom to find one that is OR to take the difficult but potentially rewarding path of working to change the overall doctrine of their chosen religion. 

When the two aspects of marriage as it currently exists are separated, couples of all types can choose what makes sense for them and the state can do its job (protecting people's liberty and freedom to choose by creating and enforcing the laws that do so) and the Church can do its job (providing people a way to get closer to God).  If you look closely at the can of worms that President Obama and Governor Romney are said to be opening over the "gay marriage issue", you will see clearly stamped on the back: manufactured by the US Government.  Put the can back on the shelf, let the state do what it was designed to do, let the Church do what it was designed to do.  And let's focus on some real, rather than manufactured problems.

Sorry about that folks, but it appears my blog was hacked.  No, all of the posts are mine…but someone dropped in some php code in a few of my template files and index.php file.  After trying my best to clean everything up and installing every highly rated firewall, malware and antivirus plugin I could find, I think its cleaned-up.  Sorry for anyone I might have infected – I did run a local virus scan on the machines I use to post and preview the site and they came up clean.  So maybe it was just someone trying to get you to buy something to either grow or shrink something you probably don't need to grow or want to shrink.

Last year I used this blog to get a lot of great suggestions about the trip we planned to Europe last summer.  It worked great and we were able to do alot of things we wouldn't have known about if it weren't for your ideas.  So, I though I'd try it again, only this time with a twist:  where should we go?

My original thought was to head out west for a week or two and see the grand canyon, yosemite and the like.  Then Hawaii came into the mix.  Recently we've been thinking about Puerto Rico or the Caymans.  So it's really up in the air.  Looking to stay reasonably close to home (next year the plan is to take the kids through Asia, so want a easier vacation this year) but other than that open to any and all suggestions.  Only other constraint is that is has to be nice in the mid to late July time frame…really the only time we can go.  So…where are you sending us?