I’d like to hear from some Trump supporter friends on this: whom in our society need be concerned about Trump’s promise to take revenge on enemies? Follow up, particularly for free speech lovers, would you agree with this kind of action? (I mean, he apparently won unless there really was some kind of massive voter miscounts like some believe happened in 2020.)

And whom specifically? Enemies like journalists or comedians or networks? What about cities, counties and states whose majority didn’t vote him in? What about average people like myself who’ve been outspoken about *not* choosing Trump and why we’ve chosen that view? 

Truth be told, I haven’t thought he’d be a good president of the US since the ‘80s when we was on the Oprah Winfrey show, pretty much for all the reasons I don’t think he’ll be good now. And I’ve got my own personal experience with ultra-rich people who may have started out as Free Marketeers but definitely switched to “It’s All Mine” once they got to a certain level, IMO. So, let me walk you through some of this, if your curious.

Does this sound familiar to anyone: “My business runs itself!” I know that I’ve been sold this idea many, many times. I don’t know how many times I heard or read that from all the biz books I’ve read over the years.

But let’s think about that for a moment: if your business runs itself, that means it doesn’t need you. That means you are not contributing. That means the success has nothing to do with you anymore. That means that if you are training for space, running for office, buying out businesses with your personal resources, or, say, running the country as president or as head of the office of efficiency, you aren’t contributing. So, how then, can you claim to be so excellent at running your companies? Yet, our culture always presses that badge to ultra-wealthy people. If you got that much, you must be special, a business whiz. 

I disagree.

Since the ‘80s through my own work in high tech, I’ve rubbed elbows with at least 2 billionaires and a number of multi-millionaires. I have the same observation about them as I have about Trump: these guys are too full of themselves to listen. They’ve simply surrounded themselves with Yes Men the moment it was possible. They forever surround themselves with Yes Men.   I’ll tell you this: Yes Men don’t help you find solutions for complex problems, well, maybe any problems other than the problem with hearing “no”.

But back to my story…

The one billionaire prided himself on handling out Christmas bonuses personally every year. And that was nice, but he tortured his staff with his wife whose marriage “contract” apparently included a top level VP-ship at his flagship company. She could have been smart, she could have contributed in some way I didn’t see. But what I did see was pretty much more like a bratty princess, rather than a business leader. She demanded assistants for dry-cleaning and hair cut appointments or shopping duties as a part of her “business expenses”. 

The billionaire also seemed, frankly, a little addled those 5-6 years where I occasionally fell into his orbit.  While my interaction with the two of them was infrequent, the little interaction I had did nothing to garner any respect from me. I prefer people who *do*, not people who lord over or shop as their chosen profession. 

This billionaire felt like a kind of Reagan-y nice guy who’d legally steal distressed properties away from poor, old people by paying property taxes ahead if he could, but with a big kind-hearted smile. (Funnily enough, I found out about this common sh*tty strategy from the local banker in my mom’s home town who had a reputation for doing that, despite being a good church goer through the years. This disgusts me despite being totally legal. You can probably check out several investment books out of your own library and do this yourself, should you choose. I mean, you know, it’s legal. And we all have choices in this life.) 

The other billionaire was only a multi-hundred-millionaire when he offered me a job. He became a billionaire two companies later. Of course, when he took me to dinner to offer me this job, he also revealed his real intent: he thought that if he hired me, he would get my then-estranged husband to move out to California to work for him, too (they went to the same university for graduate school). 

I was more than surprised to hear this little kid bit. Now, perhaps if he’d offered a sh*t ton more money, maybe I’d have taken the job. But he spoke his true intent as he slid the job offer on paper to me. The numbers were, well, pretty hilariously low. I pointed out to him that the cost of living in Mountain View, Cali, would make this a pretty significant pay cut. 

Then I said, you know, I don’t think my *estranged husband* is going to be tempted. And I wasn’t kidding. In that very moment, I felt a little sorry for this goofy dufus and just thought he’d have better luck being direct with the person he actually wanted rather than this way. This is a kind of pattern in my life, as f*ckers insult me to my face, I always have this moment of seeing their humanity for reals and, yes, feel a little sorry for them. Inexplicable, but true.

The rest of the multimillionaires all had a similar kind of oblivion to reality. The money seems to do that. Most of the high tech companies I’ve worked for had a particular set of founders that fell into a couple of camps: the techies who invented the actual tech and the goofy guy they hung out with at the frat house who was smart enough to see some potential money, but not smart enough to contribute to the invention itself. Very often, that was the same who did the “fruit salad” genitalia tricks I’ve never seen before but heard of more times than I care to remember.

The fruit-salad-genetalia-guy always seemed to be hired as the CEO.

Fast forward to when the companies start going big time (IPOs, major global contract announcements, etc.), the credit for the company gets equated to the “face” of the company, the CEO. The other founders who actually did the work, along side the legions of others like myself who did the work alongside them, are quickly forgotten. The world, at that point, says very loudly: this is the only person who matters.

It seems like a truly tiny period of time before these billionaire/millionaire types actually believe now for themselves that they are the only employee that counts *and* their companies run themselves — quite literally, the non-contributing zeros think they are the only important factor in actually making something worth selling. Hmmm.

So, f*k no, I don’t think Trump’s going to save anything. And I openly acknowledge that I could be wrong. At this point, I’m hopeful I turn out to be very wrong, but that’s still my opinion on the matter. We’ll see won’t we.

But there’s something more here: the promise to seek revenge in some form, any form, for detractors. What’s that going to be like? And, more importantly, do *you* think it’s right?

I remember going against the political grain in my 20s while my father was still alive. His professional life began during the Cold War. He worked in the defense industry along side many Russian defectors — some of whom were killed in the same ways we’ve all experienced through narratives in James Bond, Jack Reacher, John Clark and the like.  Murders by means of a lethal pinprick from an umbrella tip as one strolls through the crowded streets of a city, for example.

When my dad was alive, I learned of these experiences as he told me: keep your head down! Don’t let anyone see you like this.  Free speech? No.

So, Trump supporters I know: what’s your take? Is our free speech something we dissenters now need have lost if we value our lives and livelihoods?

Summary of the 2022 Election from Patriotic Billionaires

"..American billionaires spent $880 million on the midterm elections by the end of October, with the final total spent likely approaching an astronomical $1 billion. That’s a game-changing amount of money, and with the lion’s share of it going to Republican candidates and groups, the billionaires were confident they would be able to get their money’s worth. Fortunately for most regular Americans, a “red wave” was largely avoided, but billionaire wealth still has a deep and troubling hold on our democracy.

We live in a country where support from the wealthy, rather than the public, is the number one determining factor in a policy proposal becoming law. As billionaire wealth continues to grow, and their spending on our elections grows accordingly, this will only worsen. If we want to stop our slide into oligarchy - where a few rich and powerful people call all the shots - and save our democracy, we need to shrink billionaire fortunes by taxing the ultra-rich, and we need to do it now.

Right now, the wealthiest Americans pay almost nothing in taxes. Thanks to a dizzying array of loopholes and special rules for the rich, the 25 richest people in America paid a tax rate of just 3.4% between 2014 and 2018 on over $400 billion in wealth gains. As a result, billionaire wealth grew by over 60% during the pandemic, increasing by over $1 trillion in 2021 alone. It’s no wonder they’re spending more to influence our elections. After all, they’ve got an extra trillion dollars to throw around.

This level of extreme wealth coupled with a campaign finance system that allows single individuals to make obscenely large political donations is a devastating combination. It doesn’t matter what groups or causes they champion (even if they happen to be ones that we agree with), at the end of the day, ultra-wealthy people like us should not be allowed to use our wealth to warp elections and politics in our preferred direction and, in the process, effectively drown out the voices and demands of everyone else in the country.

 Citizens United

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the now-infamous Citizens United case that corporations, labor unions, and other advocacy groups could spend unlimited amounts of money on “independent expenditures,” i.e., political advertising conducted separately from candidates’ campaigns. Subsequent rulings followed this precedent and extended this right to individuals.

Political spending by the rich was already enormous before Citizens United, but the ruling made it explode. Since 2010, billionaire donors have spent 39 times more in federal elections. Between 2009 and 2021, the top twelve political ‘mega-donors’ accounted for 1 out of every 13 dollars spent in federal elections. And if that wasn’t enough, in the 2020 election cycle, billionaires contributed almost 1 out of every 10 dollars received by federal campaigns.

The midterms were obviously no exception to the trend of the ultra-rich dominating our elections. As mentioned, billionaires spent $880 million on the midterm elections by the end of October - which was 44% more than what they contributed in the 2018 midterms.

In essence, the five Supreme Court justices who decided Citizens United declared that money equals speech in America. But they were wrong. Money is not speech – instead, it is power. All of us have the opportunity to contribute to our favored political causes and campaigns and make our voices heard, but only the rich have the financial power to make use of that opportunity. This overwhelms the voices of everyone else in America. Americans for Tax Fairness Executive Director Frank Clemente put this phenomenon best when he said that billionaire wealth is “drowning our democracy.”

Oligarchs

Billionaires use their wealth to purchase political power. The fact that they are able to do this with such ease is why we like to call them oligarchs..."

Read the full report, by downloading it.

Some people seemed concerned about the separation of church and state when they saw a menorah put up by the Liberty Theatre. We may be surprised to learn that a menorah is included with holiday decorations at the White House, first appearing in 1979 under the Carter Administration.  

• How the Chanukah Menorah Made Its Way to the Public Sphere in the US

• Justice Department's Statement on Holiday Decorations as of 2021

• Cornell Law School Take on Religious Displays on Goverment Property

While I don't claim to know others experience, I, personally, do not find my Christian values disturbed by allowing others their freedom of expression and I value embracing a diverse work force and citizenry. 

As it happens, I have never been comfortable in groups of all-one-type, whether it was working with almost exclusively: men in high tech, women in volunteering and higher education, or young people in restaurant jobs or high school sports. 

When groups get too concentrated, it seems like bad habits come out and dominate. It's very much like monoculture and how we are finding that monoculture farming practices not only lead to unusable land, but to that plant's extinction. 

It's also interesting to note that a lot of historical context on separation of church and state was due to fears that the government would corrupt the church. These days we appear to be more concerned with the wrong church taking over the government. 

I say, let's keep the church(es) and their leadership as far away from government activity as possible. Incorporate shared values, but don't require religious ritual adherence to anyone. We should remain free to express how we believe as we wish, not hide in the shadows with our true thoughts and beliefs.

Skyline Baptist Church is home to the Christian Impact Commission  that produces a Candidate Questionnaire. The 2022 questionnaire didn't make it to my PO Box for the 10-7-22 deadline to be included, but I thought a lot about these issues even before receiving this questionnaire. 

It made sense, then, to journal about them.

According to the letter I received, Skyline's commission has been producing voter information guides since 2006 for an estimated 2,500 community members. I wasn't able to find any online presence or public records of a political commission, but I did find one guide from 2012. If you are interested in the guide, CIC Communications Director, Dutch Mostert, can be contacted here: dutchmostert@netscape.net, 541-756-3765. 

Dutch, if you read this: I would love to know more about this. In particular, I would love to know which churches are in your network.

My request for the commission for the future is this: Let's figure out how to discuss local issues, too, like this one: how do we handle the public service issues the nomadic population washing through our community create? Can we create any opportunities from this flow which seems very likely to continue and increase in the coming years?

On to the questionnaire: The 2012 version seemed to be designed like a quick reference chart. The answer format is very limited:  you must answer with Yes or No. Then and only then, as the letter describes, will a one line comment be included in the guide.  The guide was a form to fill out. Given my handwriting size, that seemed to be about give me about one full tweet to answer (150 characters).

I struggled with this limitation as I thought about each question because there's a lot packed into every one. I, personally, like to give room for answers. But since this questionnaire limits answers to tweets almost literally. 

So, here are my bites, such as they are...

1. Do you support parent's right to choose private school or home school?

Yes: And our government has a duty to educate everybody. Private schools & charters can turn students away.  That's the central difference between government and private entities. Like the US Mail, government has to deliver to everybody, in principle if not practice. That means that the network that provides for everybody has to be expansive and supported (money, money, money). 

Our reality is tough:  rural services cost more to provide than that same service to the same number of people in a populated area.  

Personally, I am very thankful for public services like the US mail. I very much notice that prices for me are the same as for populated areas where the cost to serve per person is much lower compared to where I live. 

Public schools are the same way. The home schooling family or charter school doesn't need to include everyone, so they don't need any buildings or teachers (or lights or heat or paper or pencils, etc.) or any other accommodations needed to serve the whole public. (Money, money, money, in order to fulfill their obligation to the entire public.) 

And public education fuels the work force. We have very few jobs, much less family wage jobs, that do not require literacy, math skills and other parts of basic education. 

2.  Does our government have a right to enforce lock down or vaccines mandates?

No, particularly no vaccine mandates, IMO. But I'm **glad** it isn't up to me. It's a catch-22.

Me choosing to be in presence of danger should probably mean me and mine getting hurt doesn't incur a public cost because I chose that action that caused me harm  despite knowing risks the government informed me of.  

During COVID times, I found myself staying out of public or wearing a mask in public because I wanted to minimize the opportunity to make someone else sick, even if only in principle.  I just didn't want to feel like I made some ole lady die because I sneezed disease on her  by accident and she was more vulnerable. I also wasn't sold on the vaccine as actually working or not creating side effects for me. 

And yet again after being eligible for the vaccine, I found myself thinking:  "My life is easy. I can take one for the team." What I meant was that I wasn't going to loose wages or suffer greatly if I did get sick with a bad case of COVID or vaccine side effects and I want medicine to progress, so yes, I will do this experimental thing for my community in an effort for all of us to get one step closer to okay.

But how to you deal with this kind of public hazard on a large scale?  It seems impossible to me, there's just no good answer. 

When New York City "locked down", the bodies from COVID-related deaths where piling up and public systems couldn't function. At that level, the government has to make some emergency rules, but permanent emergency rules -- ugh!   As well, the "lockdown" shelter-in-place process was really in service to keeping our hospitals from getting overrun with COVID -- something really hard to see on a day to day basis. 

It only takes a tiny fraction of a population for small, rural hospitals to be overrun. 

 So, we were all locking down so that our hospital could still perform heart and cancer surgeries and Emergency Room activities for all the non-COVID reasons we go to the hospital.  

That's a huge ask, especially if one isn't an essential worker as most of us found ourselves.  And yet, the reality is that our hospital could not support even a few percent of our population needing COVID-related hospitalization. 

Did I like COVID-19 "lock down"? No. Did it make me appreciate all the grocery store and gas station attendants who had to work? Yes. 

Did I think it made sense to go so many months? I don't know, but I do know that we are likely to see more and more worldwide diseases sweeping through even our community for a variety of global conditions that are making conditions for human disease easy right now. 

There is no good answer, although I personally lean towards ensuring personal freedoms rather than any mandates. That said, I'm very glad my decision making isn't at a level where the two choices are riddled with hazards: 

1. a bunch of poorly prepared people die in a short period of time vs. 

2. almost everybody looses wages to the extent that rent, mortgages, food and other essentials become a shell game of loss.  So grateful that's not my job. So grateful to the people taking the punches in those jobs because I like access to an emergency room.

3. Do you support a free market solution over the mandated purchase system of healthcare?

No: Catch-22: On the one hand, any type of healthcare insurance is a terrible way to pay for something that everyone will use. Insurance is lots of people pooling money together, hoping that only a few use. On the other hand, "free market" insurance isn't free because insurance is people pooling their money together as one, so competition is among a handful of companies, not a market with many competitors.

We already have a quasi-free-market insurance system that rations care. It rations care to those with the pocket change.  Like many other parts of the system where a few corporations fake a free market, our system has allowed a handful of pharmaceutical companies to subsidize their worldwide distribution of the same drugs that we, Americans, pay a lot more for. Did you know that US pays over  70% more than in Mexico and 600% more than in Turkey for the same medications on average?  (Yes, read that link above.) Brutal. We have a terrible monster baby offspring from "Free Market" and Insurance birthing our healthcare system today. 

I, personally, was extremely grateful for Obamacare because I was able to open a small business and have healthcare I could afford even when my income was below $10,000. The healthcare system needs fixing but free market isn't going to do that and insurance isn't going to do that.  At least healthcare does produces tons of locally sourced jobs. Wherever healthcare is, local people with good paying jobs work.

4. Roe v. Wade Overturn: do you support restricting abortion?

No: Genesis 2:21 & Exodus 21:22-25 come to mind.

Adam & Eve come into scripture as full human beings. The rib didn't have rights until it became Eve or the scriptures would say something like "while Eve lived inside Adam".  Exodus' description for legal damages delineates very directly: human inside of the womb is not afforded that of a human outside the womb.  

We afford people the right to use, destroy or dispose of their property with impunity.  We also all know the child grows *inside* the body of the woman.  How is the child inside of our bodies not our property? 

I never want any one I love to feel compelled to get an abortion, but I've known enough abusive partners, poor financial situations, and other conditions where a scared person would choose an abortion.  

It's also impossible to deny simple biology. If God wanted human life to be a community process, we would lay eggs like other animals and insects. Yet, humans are incubated inside women's bodies. That's her property, period. And if we loved her enough to respect her, we might offer real choices in a compassionate way, not force her.

And to be frank,  I am very confused by so many pro-lifers in my circle who insist that a scared woman must be forced to have a child, often without any support at all, and often using "thou shalt not kill",  but registering one's guns are a violation of privacy. How is what lives in my body not my private affair?

5. Should churches or businesses be compelled to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies?

No: Every church has the right to deny participation the congregation or leaders see fit when it comes to their organization.  And every church can pick and choose the parts of the Bible they honor or not. I Samuel 18 details the love between Jonathan and David, for example, but we don't have to incorporate that in our private institution if we do not wish to.

There's a reason we have a ton of different Christian denominations: issues well beyond Jesus' teachings separate us and we like it that way. And that is perfectly fine. We get to choose. 

However, when it comes to the government, 14th Amendment Section I affords equal protection to everybody under our constitution. That specifically means, anyone I, or you, we, or they do not like, or even, perhaps, wish were harmed in some way -- even in our righteous anger -- is afforded equal protection under our constitution despite our feelings about that person.  

Criminals still get charged, tried and go to jail, but a general dislike or lack of community approval of someone is not enough for the public to harm another person.  

When I get really angry at someone, I find that inconvenient, too. But when I've been attacked or threatened just for being alive and coexisting, I've certainly appreciated that clause.

6. Do you believe male and female genders are biologically determined and immutable?

No: Matthew 19:12, Isaiah 56:3, Acts 8:27-40 come to mind.  Nature is diverse, whether we like it that way or not. Biological reality from around the world shows us: human beings continue to be born with different DNA, hormone profiles and body parts that don't conform to a norm for "male" and "female". Their numbers may be statistically small such that most of us probably won't encounter any such people, perhaps, but these people are born into this world.

People who don't conform to biological, genetic forms exist and have existed since humans came on the scene. God makes us all.  We would never think of reclassifying, much less taking away the rights of, people with cancers or other diseases who had to have their sexual organs or body parts cut out.  Why then would we pursue that for people God made that way from the get go? 

When our North Bend School Board started getting public comment around transgenderism being an excuse to hide and harm girls in the girls bathroom, I started recalling my own high school experience. The boys in both my school and my church did not need anything to feel completely entitled to try touch me and other girls. It was a physical game to them. Boys didn't need to dress up like girls and hide in order to bully us, sexually or otherwise. Some bullied simple because they could. "Boys will be boys."

So I wonder: are we worried about violence? Then why limit our safety measures? How are we safer if we only have consequences for a "transgender" who hides and hurts girls? And what about boys getting hurt? How about consequences for **anyone** who hurts others, period? That would be far more in line with our constitutional protections (again, 14th Amendment Section I affords equal protection).

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with all forms and flavors of human existence. I'm definitely uncomfortable with many habits and forms of expression in the human spectrum I've been exposed to. I am saying that my discomfort is not enough to deny those people the right to exist, nor their pursuit of happiness in some form. 

Now, the Declaration of Independence does use the word "men" in speaking of the right to liberties, although our constitution righted that a bit with the 19th Amendment allowing women to vote.  I am certainly grateful for the modern association of the words man and men as encompassing all humans.  And I certainly think it does include all humans, even when I am uncomfortable with some of those humans. 

Further, if we look at the original languages of scriptures, we find a lot more about all humans and how to treat all humans. Unfortunately, our translations around gender continue to be mistranslated into English.  And those translations appear to mostly reduce inclusiveness, e.g.  the word men is used, rather than the word humans. For example, the word אָדָם‎ ( 'adam ) isn't a man named Adam. I is equivalent to human: collectively ("mankind", Genesis 1:27), individually (a "man", Genesis 2:7), gender nonspecific ("man and woman", Genesis 5:1–2), and male (Genesis 2:23–24).

I am worried, though.  The Supreme Court's majority rulings justified because certain words don't appear in the constitution scares me quite a bit.  In particular, neither the words "woman" or "women" appear in the constitution at all.  Nor do cell phone, insurance, consumer protection law, or other modern ideas we all rely on here in America. Perhaps we really do need that ERA amendment.

This reduction of the meaning of written word as we read it in our own language programs us to view other people as not actually people.  It is also a well-used tactic by the very wealthy across written history to control the rest of us.

"Divide and rule"  has been used for millennia so that a very few can gain and maintain control over the many.  How else could colonizers or CEOs of the most successful corporations, who number so very few, gain or maintain control? 

When we fight each other, we loose our individual freedoms bit by bit, scratch by scratch, as we fight those more like us than the people whom we give our power to.  Case in point:  do we really think that those CEOs training for space (Amazon, Tesla!) are contributing in any way, shape or form? It's just physically too hard to do or think about anything else, isn't it? 

7. Do you support decisions based primarily on environmental concerns rather than concern for human or economic benefit? 

Yes:  Lots of ways God instructs us about Earth. but Leviticus 25:23-24 speaks the loudest to me: "The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land."  These also speak directly to our responsibility:  Ezekiel 34:2-4, Isaiah 24:5, Jeremiah 2:7, Revelation 11:18. 

If the economic benefit destroys the ability sustain life, it's not a benefit. Beyond these verses, Jesus' call to "love others", to me, also includes not destroying the ability for the land to sustain us whatever the reason for that destruction.

8. Do you support mandatory gun registration in Oregon?

Yes: Like Driver's Licenses & Driver's Ed, I think basic gun safety would be an excellent education addition and guns should be licensed.  I  think we are better as nation of licensed drivers as the norm.  Because guns are so quick and powerful, I think a nation of licensed users as the norm is better. 

Anyone who's actually shot any gun knows just how easy it is to pull a trigger.  So, why wouldn't we want people buying guns to have some safety training and other regulations? 

Both of my parents grew up in households with hunters and guns. My mother was taught all aspects of hunting  by her preacher father*except* for shooting a gun because she was female. We didn't have guns in the house growing up.  We weren't taught anything about guns.

My first experience shooting a gun was also my first experience handling a gun, period, with a friend who's family where big game hunters. They presumed I knew basic gun safety because I was a good church girl who wasn't afraid of hard physical work.  I did not and didn't think to say anything. 

The power of the Colt 45 caused me to drop it after shooting the teflon-tipped bullets we were using as target practice. I could have easily accidentally shot myself or my friend. The 22 gauge rifle felt like a pellet gun but it's kick was still enough of a surprise for me to loose control of the gun. Again, I could have easily shot myself or the others around us.

If our militia were truly well-regulated, I wouldn't have had the gun in my hands so casually. I'm glad I didn't hurt anyone to learn that lesson. I'm also glad that my friend's family didn't give the good church girl a try with an AK-47. I imagine with bullet sprays, we wouldn't have been so lucky with my missteps.

I also think that the licensing system is our modern Paul Revere communication system. As a patriot, I want to to be in the communication network about our country. Why wouldn't a patriot want to be in the know? I could easily see using the licensed gun system to set out an alarm if a foreign army were to invade US soil. And I would want to be in on that.

Guns aren't mentioned in the bible but Exodus 22:2-3 is my favorite supporting verse for self-defense. That said,  verses on self-defense conflict. So, I have to go to other materials to ponder guns, specifically.

 Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment clearly states:

 "...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..." 

A militia is an armed band of citizens, unlike the military controlled by the government.  We get to own and bear weapons. That use is, and should be, "well regulated", as the Constitution mandates.

Resistance to registration is baffling to me, personally. But I have enough people close to me who think otherwise to understand that government knowledge feels scary to a lot of people, a violation of privacy. (Strictly speaking, the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, either, however, court rulings beyond Roe v. Wade frequently imply a right to privacy).  

But if this ever happened, we could do what our government system does best: look forward. Register all gun sales going forward, leave the past to the past. And if you want to gift someone your AK-47, go right ahead.  

I personally feel like someone with an intention to shoot others would probably walk out of a place where everyone had a gun strapped to their thigh. So, I really don't understand why hiding feels safer to some gun owners.

I've been looking round for expanded views, because in my opinion, we do have a gun problem, but it's not the common Us against Them, Gun Owners vs. Gun Avoiders. 

 Our problem is around minimizing gun violence between citizens, including deadly force by police. 

Politicizing our constitutional right to bear arms is a very easy way to incite conflict among communities, neighbors and families. 

When it comes to other countries influencing America negatively , dividing our citizens is the most effective way to disrupt our national community.   And we've seen a misinformation storm fueled by foreign organizations around this right. 

Gun Law in Ukraine, as explained by Wikipedia (grain of salt, always prudent) can give us insight into managing this balance. I, for one, find this overview as both simplifying and improving upon what we do in the US. 

Excerpt of Ukraine Law From Wikipedia

Ukraine is the only country in Europe where firearms are not regulated by statute. Everything related to firearms is regulated by Order №622 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Citizens are permitted to own non-fully automatic rifles and shotguns as long as they are stored properly when not in use.

Handguns are illegal except for target shooting, those who hold concealed carry permits, and handguns awarded for service.[1] Concealed carry licenses are available, but are not normally issued unless a threat to life is present and can be proven.[2]

A license is required to own firearms, and a citizen may be issued a license if that person:

• is 25 years of age for rifle ownership, 21 years of age for smoothbore weapon ownership, 18 years of age for cold or pneumatic weapon ownership;

• has no criminal record;

• has no history of domestic violence;

• has no mental illness or history of mental illness;

• has a good reason (target shooting, hunting, collection).

Once a license is issued, all guns must be kept unloaded and in a safe.

Quick action when invaded by Russia

On February 23, 2022, following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and a declaration of a state of emergency the Ukrainian parliament approved a law which gives citizens the right to carry weapons outside their homes for the purpose of self defense [5][6][7]

On February 24, 2022 Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said "We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. Be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities" in a tweet. As of February 26, 2022 over 25,000 automatic rifles, 10 million rounds of ammunition and unknown numbers RPGs have been handed out to civilians according to Interior Minister Denis Monastyrsky. All one needs to get a rifle is an I.D. card. Open training has been organized for civilians by war veterans throughout Kyiv.[8][9][10][11][12]