Bobbi Ann Johnson Holmes

Gun Control, is it Unconstitutional?

More than half of our country wants more comprehensive gun control. For the people out there who like their guns, this doesn’t mean the majority wants to take away everyone’s guns, despite what the NRA keeps telling you. In fact, many of those people are gun owners. But the NRA loves saying that, because people who believe them run out and buy more guns. It’s great for the gun manufacturers’ bottom line.  

It’s possible those children and teachers in Uvalde might still be alive today if there were background checks, waiting periods, and a higher age limit. 

About now some of you might be saying, “If someone wants to get a gun, then they’ll find some way to do it.”

True. But why do you want to make it easier on them? While it won’t prevent all shootings, it will prevent some. And if we save even one life, isn’t it worth it?

I suppose about now some of you say it is YOUR right to buy a gun—any gun—whenever you want, because that’s what the 2nd Amendment says!

But does it really?

The 1st Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” means (according to the Supreme Court) that it protects all types of speech and press, even pornography. BUT the court ruled that there are two types of pornography it does not protect, obscenity and child pornography.

So, even though the Constitution never expressly excluded “obscenity and child pornography” when adding the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court limited free speech.

In my opinion, obscenity is rather vague, but I totally agree with the child pornography ruling, because it is our duty to protect children. Of course, this does not mean child porn laws stops all child porn.

And now, to the 2nd Amendment. Why can’t we regulate guns like we do speech, to protect children? Both guns and speech/press are protected under the constitution. Why should guns be exempt when it comes to protecting children, but speech/press isn’t?

According to what I’ve read, 98% of mass shootings are committed by men—young men, typically under 33, often 18 or younger. Why make it so easy for an 18-year-old male to buy a firearm like the one used in Uvalde? 

There is an old saying about not reinventing the wheel. If we want to find a solution to this problem, why aren’t we studying what other countries are doing? Why is it just our country that seems to have this problem?

And I don’t believe this is a state issue—it should be a federal issue. It’s useless to have background checks, waiting limits or age requirements in one state, when all someone has to do is cross the border into another state and buy a weapon.

Congress needs to at the very least open a discussion. But as long as the NRA continues to buy Senators, they will keep avoiding examining real solutions, and continue to focus primarily on more good guys with guns.  But we all saw how that worked out in Uvalde.

We don’t elect prayer warriors…

I’m an advocate for prayer, yet I also believe in free will and that God helps those who help themselves, and when we pray the answer might be no. I don’t believe we are supposed to sit around and do nothing but pray, and God will just fix everything for us.

But when it comes to our duly elected officials solving problems in this country, it does not matter what I believe regarding God and prayer. And it does not matter what you believe.

In the United States of America there is supposed to be separation of church and government. Our citizens might be atheist or believe in some higher power. And that higher power might not be of the Christian faith.

When our duly elected officials—people who have blatantly ignored the problem of school shootings—only response after a tragedy like the community of Uvalde experienced yesterday is some lame tweet like “we are sending our prayers,” I want to freaking scream.  

They were NOT elected to be our prayer warriors; they were elected to enact laws that will help fix the problem.

Am I advocating for all the guns in the country to be confiscated? No, but there should be sensible regulations that would help prevent someone like yesterday’s shooter from getting his hands on such devastating killing machines.

And before you whine about the sacred Second Amendment, I ask you, are you also whining about the First Amendment? You know, the one that is currently being shredded with recent book banning and laws like the Don’t Say Gay bill?

Don’t even get me started on the legislation regulating a woman’s body! I read that 98% of mass killing shooters are MEN, not WOMEN.  Yet there are brilliant legislatures out there spending their time regulating women, while letting any wack-job buy an AR-15. 

And yes, I think those of us who believe in prayer should pray for Uvalde.  But I don’t think it is the only thing we should do.

Characters are only human…

One possible visualization of Walt and Danielle

The characters in our books may not actually be human, but the goal is to make the reader believe they are. That being said, I always find it amusing when a review has an issue with something one of the characters says or does. 

In my opinion, a reviewer has the right to take issue with any book—providing the issue exists. For example, I had a reviewer once slam one of my books because of all the things I pushed about Mormons in the story. There was NO mention of Mormons in that book.

When it comes to critiquing characters, it makes sense for a reviewer to note when a character says or does something completely foreign to the character the author has created—without any feasible explanation. For example, if Danielle shot and killed Lily in the first chapter of book 30, my readers would assume it must be some nightmare scene, or that wasn’t really Lily or Danielle. But if by the end of the book the readers realize it was in fact Lily and Danielle, and Danielle decided to kill Lily because Lily said something annoying, that would not only alienate readers, it would justifiably bring on the one-star reviews.

But aside from a character behaving out of character—I always shake my head when I get a negative review where the reviewer says something like, “The author said Portland was the capital of Oregon. Can’t the author use Google?” (This is purely an example, and not something from one of my books.)

My question to the reviewer, “Did the ‘author’ say that, or did a character?”  Nothing a fictional character says in a book should ever be taken as ‘fact’. After all, a character is only human, right? And humans make mistakes all the time.

The same is true for grammar issues. When a reviewer leaves comments about the poor grammar in the book, sometimes they are talking about the grammar in the dialogue, which is not a legitimate issue. Unless the character was an educated person and unlikely to speak in that manner.

I had one writer friend who had an English teacher edit his first books. It didn’t work out, because she was always trying to clean up the dialog and remove contractions. Her version was not how people really talk.

As for the grammar comments in reviews–as a reader of reviews, you need to take those with a hefty grain of salt and weigh the other reviews. If an overwhelming number of reviewers slam the grammar in a book, the author may have a problem. Yet if it is only a couple, maybe not. There have been times someone has pointed out a ‘mistake’ to me, only to discover they were wrong. (This was after I double checked with several professional editors.)

When reading a book, readers often get frustrated at how the characters behave and then slam the book in a review. They sometimes slam the author if a character behaves inappropriately, which I find amusing.

If a character in a book is a flaming misogynist, it doesn’t necessarily mean the author condones that behavior. After all, many of my characters murder people, and I don’t condone murder.

Personally, I strive to craft three-dimensional characters, those who have both negative and positive traits—like real people. I also believe a character should be realistically shaped by his or her past.

I remember a couple of reviews that slammed Walt; they felt he was creepy and too forward with Danielle. They failed to consider he was a man of his era. While it is nice to aspire to raising our current sons to treat women as equals and to respect boundaries, it’s not realistic to imagine a man from the 1920s suddenly appearing and immediately behaving according to today’s standards—or the standards we aspire to.