Firearms Views:
I try never to refer to a firearm as a weapon unless it is to indicate a criminals use of a firearm. I believe that firearms are not weapons unless they are used in a crime. I know this is a matter of semantics but since so much of the firearms issues are caught up in sound bite warfare I believe we must stay consistent in referring to them as tools not weapons. Think of it this way. If you use a knife in cooking it is only called a knife. If it is used to murder someone it is then and only then that it becomes a weapon. Even if used in self defense the knife would still be referred to as a knife used to defend oneself. Therefore I will call all firearms by their correct names when talking about them being used as tools for law abiding citizens. The terms listed below are my definitions of the words and not necessarily the accurate definitions. Basically this is how I intend the terms to be used within my writing.

1. Firearm - Any hand operated tool designed to shoot a projectile through the use of a gunpowder propellant.
2. Gun - Kinda a loose term I dont often use unless it fits the context better than other terms but should be viewed the same as a firearm.
3. Handgun - Any firearm designed to be able to be fired with one hand. Essentially this is the same as the definition of a firearm but excludes rifles and shotguns.
4. Pistol - Any of the semi-automatic handguns with the barrel directly connected to the ammunition chamber. Exp. my M1911
5. Revolver - Any handgun with a revolving cylinder not directly connected to the barrel. Exp. my S&W .357
6. Rifle and Shotguns - Any long barreled firearm generally designed to be used with both hands. Exp. my M1 Garand
7. Weapon - Any Firearm used in the commission of a crime. Or a firearm used or owned in a illegal manner.

I believe so strongly in firearms safety that it has sometimes effected my ability to shoot. To me a firearm is a dangerous tool and must be treated as such. We need to take a basic test to prove we are capable of driving a car properly. If we fail to do so we are penalized through fines or revocation of our right to drive. I feel there is absolutely no reason not to treat firearms the same way. We would not think to allow someone to operate any industrial equipment without first being certified in the safe and proper use of that equipment. We would not think to allow a surgeon to operate with his surgical tools on our bodies without first being trained in full on their use.

We as a society require certification in many aspects of our lives where our actions could directly effect the lives and safety of those around us. Yet the "The right to keep and bear arms" often is excluded from this basic societal safeguard. Its a view many of my fellow firearms owners do not agree with but one I feel strongly about. I also feel that instating a "drivers license" type firearms license would go a long way to protecting the right to own a firearm by protecting those who use their firearms in a safe manner while punishing those who dont. Of course I also do not subscribe to the thought pattern that our government is in some way conspiring against us so having them know of my firearms does not frighten me.

Firearms and children are rarely a good mix. Children, especially young teens are curious by nature and defiant by hormones. I believe strongly that if ou have children and firearms you must take extraordinary measures to insure they have absolutely no access to them when not under your direct supervision. It is also foolish to hide firearms from children. They will find them. No matter how good a hiding place you think you have. They will find them. No matter how inaccessible to them you think they are. They will find them. Getting the point. Your kids are much smarter than you when it comes to hiding places. Remember they have more practice playing hide and seek everyday. It is also vital that your child is given lessons and training with the firearm to lessen the mystery and adventure that the firearm inherently has to a child. Its your choice to decide when your child is ready but I would suggest that as soon as they begin showing any interest in guns at all you should begin to allow them access to the firearm in a controlled and unloaded manner. But then what do I know I don't and won't have kids.

Theological and Philosophical Views:

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in fairies, ghosts, goblins, witches, men from outer space coming to Earth or any deity, supernatural being or god. My writing often expresses these views more fully so please take the time to read through them. I believe in the scientific method. I believe reason and logic are the strongest traits one can possess and should be cultivated and used at all times. Faith, hope and prayer are weaknesses that must be avoided by those who whish to progress and evolve as people. Why do I include hope? Because hope is desire without action. Rather than hope something happens I attempt to ascertain how to make the thing happen and then take action to cause it to happen. Hoping that one survives a disaster is futile. Taking action to insure ones survival is the far better approach.
Some may say "Without hope, life is not worth living." or some other such crap.
I say "With hope you are not living life."
Here are some other thoughts on hope from some people you may have heard of.

"In reality, hope is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs man's torments." ~Friedrich Nietzsche
"He that lives upon hope will die fasting." ~Benjamin Franklin
"Hope is the only universal liar who never loses his reputation for veracity." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
"The miserable have no other medicine. But only hope." ~William Shakespeare

I believe that hypothesis, theory and law as applied to scientific matters are very strict and defined terms. I find it offensive when they are used to describe something that is patently not as described. I refer mainly to the so called "Theory of Creationism"  or "Theory of Intelligent Design". (SAME THING) These are NOT theories. At best they could be called hypotheses but even then they do not really meat the criteria. A theory is something that has some basis in fact. It is then tested and then proven or disproved in part or in whole. The intent of anyone presenting a theory is to prove it to the point of being a law or fact. Creationism and its many euphemisms are un-provable, not based on any facts and no one is realistically attempting to prove them to fact or law. Therefore they are not theories. Should not be taught as theories and should never be called a theory. Nor should any proper person of science give them a single thought when addressing true theories.

Evolution is a Law because the preponderance of factual evidence proved it to be so. Even as a law we are constantly learning more about evolution every day because we as people of logic and reason realize that facts can change, data can be missing and new information can always be gained. The fact that we do not have all the answers about evolution does not negate it. It only serves to strengthen it as we gain more information through constant peer review, study, research and discoveries. Creationism on the other hand inherently denies any further study, research or testing and therefore has no place in science at all.

I do not impose my views on anyone in any way. When I express my views they are in reference to me and me alone. If another wishes to believe in the supernatural then that is their choice. I demand the same from all others I interact with. Those who try to convert me, especially on supernatural matters such as religion will find themselves being ignored or hit with a barrage of logic and reason depending on my mood at the time.

I suppose Im somewhat of an existentialist at heart. I believe fully that we are each responsible for our actions in full. That each of us must define our own personal moral code and follow it to the best of our abilities in life. I set myself to a very high standard on this moral code issue and often find myself condemning of others due to their lack of a sound moral code. Often those I condemn the most are those who define their moral code based on religious doctrine and yet fail to live up to it in their daily lives. I condemn any religious moral code that can be circumvented by acts of contrition that serve only to appease a deity and not the offended parties. IE I find the concept of confession to be an atrocity because the offended party is still left offended and un-compensated for the act that the confessor is supposedly now forgiven for.

I consider myself Jewish. "HA! That's a contradiction." Many say. I do not agree and Im in good company on this issue. First we must set aside our stereotype of a Jew. Judaism is a religion not a race and therefore all races can be Jewish. I myself do not "Look Jewish". A preposterous statement to be sure but none the less one that many view as some sort of truth. Second, Judaism generally recognizes two ways to be Jewish. One is to practice the religion of Judaism. Follow the teachings of the Torah and call yourself Jewish.  By this path one can "become" Jewish even if not born to Judaism. The other is to be born to a Jewish mother. In this way you are considered to be of the Jewish "Tribe" or people. Weather or not you practice Judaism or even believe in god you are still a Jew because you were born to the Jewish people. I have a Jewish mother. I had a Bar Mitzvah. I have read the Old Testament and attempted to understand what I was reading. Something many "religious" people have not done. Therefore I am both Jewish and an Atheist without contradicting myself. 

This is neither an original idea nor unique to myself point of view. There are quite a few famous men and women of thought, science and reason who have also adopted this thought pattern over the years. I suggest looking up their histories on the internet. You may be surprised to see who in our history professed to be both. Further investigation may surprise you even further to see who, throughout history, professed to be an Atheist.

Some of our "Founding Fathers" professed Atheism or at least Agnosticism. Most saw organized religion as a problem and professed more of a Deist viewpoint on religious matters. Regardless of their individual beliefs, our Founding Fathers seemed to agree strongly in the belief that our country was to be founded on the principle that no one was to be compelled to practice any religious belief.  While your at it look up the original words to The Pledge of Allegiance.

Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the "Pledge of Allegiance". As he originally wrote the pledge it read,
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America"

Please notice that this "man of god" did not mention god in his pledge to our nations flag.
This is, in my opinion, a sign of a true American.
This is the only pledge I recite when called upon to show respect to our nations colors.

Political Views:

Well Politics is such a large spectrum topic for me that I can not sum it all up in a paragraph or two. Many of my political views have been expressed above under more specific topics. My classification or political party? Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent? None and all apply.

On environmental issues I am admittedly apathetic. I do enjoy nature, defined as "Areas of our Earth that have not been significantly modified by human interaction." I enjoy, hiking, camping and rafting in the "wilderness". I do think we are destroying our environment and the wilderness BUT I don’t really care that we are. I see nothing unnatural about it.

It is a fact that throughout the history of the Earth many species have, either alone, together with other species and/or other environmental factors, damaged the Earths environment to the point of extinction or significant species change.
(Read it again it does make sense.)

Why are we any different? We interact with the world around us and if that interaction causes environmental changes that negatively affect ourselves and other animals then we are, in my opinion, just part of the ongoing process that is life and evolution on this planet. In essence Im saying that nothing we are capable of doing is unnatural because all we can do is interact with nature. Only so called “supernatural” interactions could be considered unnatural and I know that the supernatural is a fallacy, therefore nothing we ever do is unnatural. Logic. Try it out sometime. Its fun and liberating.

We are in no way the "custodians" or "guardians" of this planet. That would assume that some supernatural force "entrusted" the human race with some absurd task of altering the evolutionary process that is constantly changing and reforming this planet. In essence this fictional force would be commanding us to act in an unnatural manner. We are, however, in reality, nothing more than the ongoing results of a series of evolutionary processes that have been creating and altering the life forms inhabiting this planet for quite a long time. Billions of years for those of us who believe in science. Thousands of years for the rest of you.

Finely and maybe most importantly I have no delusions that the human race is somehow eternal. We can, will and must eventually reach the end of our evolutionary lifecycle. Just as the Earth itself will one day. However I am quite sure that the human race will fall long before the Earth as a life supporting planet will. When? I dont know. How? I dont know. But I do know that nothing last forever. Entropy. All things decay. From chaos to chaos. Get over it and enjoy what you have now and you will be a lot happier.