I have a pretty good idea when I came to the conclusion most folks had a viewpoint surrounding “Right and Left” politically, with which I generally do not agree.

You may have problems with the John Birch Society—and I can’t say I agree with them in every way myself (I honestly don’t know)—but there’s one thing I think they have correct.

They tend to view political right and left being related to the “amount of freedom” one espouses.

A person on the far left qualifies as totalitarian.

Moving rightward, you come to authoritarians.

Further right is bigger, “more benevolent,” government.

As you saunter in that same direction, you come to small government folks.

As far to the right as you can go, would essentially be anarchy.

I have a standing disagreement with most everyone, in that I view Socialism as a leftist idea, and
“true” Communism as a Rightist one.

Functionally though, true Communism cannot exist—any more than anarchy can. The result is that pragmatically, what most folks call communism, is actually one form or other of totalitarianism or at least authoritarianism.

I’m one of those people who doesn’t at all care for anarchy. Then again, I don’t really like government either.

Rather, I view having authorities as a necessary thing. As much as I don’t care for such, I know there are individuals out there who can’t be trusted to operate in good faith. Because that’s true, they must be “regulated.”

I tend to side on there being as little pressure being applied as possible.

I’m saying all this to “set the stage.” I want it understood, I—and I believe most on the right and the left, tend to not be far to the right or left. For that matter they don’t tend to be at all extreme in what they believe.

For my part, I consider myself centrist, with a definite right-leaning view.

I want to take a moment to discuss what that means where certain things are concerned.

Are you “gay?” We definitely disagree that’s reasonable. That said, if you’re not breaking the law in being so, that’s “on you.” I can also acknowledge the law may be bad, and if so, that it’s probably sensible for it to be “fixed.”

I feel obliged to inform you though, I’m pretty sure you’re “at odds with the Almighty.” ‘Nuff said on that score.

How do I feel about “gay marriage?” Well frankly, I feel the same way about it that I feel about any “state sanctioned” or contractual marital union.

It’s my opinion the state holding folks up as married is a garbage way to do things.

To me that bond is something between a man and a woman before God. You can make an argument for “church involvement,” and I might even be swayed to support such a thing. At present though, I don’t.

Because of my beliefs surrounding such relationships, “gay marriage” is not a thing.

The state bastardizing what marriage is or isn’t doesn’t change that.

What about “transgenderism?”

For my part, there is no such thing. To begin with, gender is a lingual construct (I’ve literally written a piece in which I explain this fact).

That means in the best case, you’re talking about “transsexual.”

Here’s the thing, sex is biological.

Based on everything I know, it’s not possible for humans to transition from one sex to the other.

Okay, there are “hermaphrodites.” People born with “hallmarks of” both sexes. The way I see things, that’s an entirely different discussion from the one where we consider people going from one to the other when—as far as I can see—there’s no basis for the claim they’re anything but that which they were when they exited the birth canal.

I’m going to let that lie, and discuss something completely different now.

The topic I want to cover is “gun rights.”

I happen to believe the United States is a Constitutional Republic with some of its representatives being democratically elected.

I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on this. The U.S. President is put in place via Electoral College. Ostensibly, the basis for Electoral College is a national popular vote.

As things were designed, Senators were appointed by the state legislature of each state. Those in the know, understand that was changed—wrongly in my view—to a popular vote, certainly on no more than a statewide basis.

Representatives are elected through a vote, counting the ballots cast in their district.

On the national level, all others (judges, executives—barring the vice president) are generally appointed.

Why did we do things this way? Funnily, it was to make it so the country was not “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” That is to say, there are base laws (read here: “The U.S. Constitution”) which those representing the people at various levels are required to follow (not that they do so all that well these days).

I say all this to make a point. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear—so clear I can include the text easily in this article. It says simply:

“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.“

In my mind, there’s zero room for equivocation in that little piece of text.

There are no limitations on type of arm—it doesn’t say “guns” or “sticks” or “bombs,” just arms.

You may argue you don’t want folks to be able to keep nuclear weapons. I really don’t have a desire for that to be true either, but if you’re reading the amendment as it was written nothing restricting such is ever said. To be fair, nukes didn’t exist at the time it was penned, but things like bombs and warships assuredly did (and were allowed).

This also means counting people ineligible on some basis is problematic. Perhaps the only exception I’ve heard that carries any weight in my view, is in the few circumstances where such freedoms have ever been abridged (such as, when a person is incarcerated).

I could go into a great deal of other topics (like abortion, assisted suicide, and so many more), but I’ve pledged to keep my articles to a given length.

You want to understand how the majority of right-leaning folks think? I may be wrong, but I’d be awfully surprised to hear it wasn’t a lot like me.

There are certainly extremists out there on both the right and the left. That said, I don’t think anything like the majority (or even a plurality) on either side lives in any bizarre place.

As usual, here’s hoping you’re well. If not, I pray that will be the case soon.