Sandy Hook; the Great Tragedy

~Posted by Ben

Disclaimer: Before I begin I must say two things. First, I have tried to keep this as short as possible; my apologies for it still being so long. Second, although we generally try to avoid political analysis on this blog, being Christians in the world (but not of it) it is imperative that we speak up for what is right. It is only fair to warn you that our political leanings are conservative, and normally best represented by the Republican Party as opposed to the others. If you have liberal leanings or tendencies I would encourage you to carefully and patiently analyze my post and try to understand my reasoning. I simply want you to be aware that the opinion about to be presented is that of a conservative.

Introduction

I believe that it is not proper to immediately pounce upon a tragedy with one’s political views, with complete insensitivity towards the victims’ families. Such was the case with liberal politicians following the Sandy Hook, Newtown Connecticut massacre. It seems that clean-up of the bodies had barely been accomplished before liberals decided to use this horrible, tragic event to their political gain, demanding that their gun control laws be passed. This was highly inappropriate. There ought to be a time of silence and remembrance for victims and victims' families after such a horrific event. It is for this reason that our family, along with several conservative organizations (such as the NRA) decided to remain respectfully silent on this issue immediately following the disaster.

However, now that all the slain victims have been laid to rest, and most of the public grieving has abated, it is time for conservatives to address this issue, NOT for the sake of political gain, but for the sake of our nation’s children, their well-being, and most importantly, their safety.

The Conservative Republicans' response

Here is a section from the NRA’s response to the Sandy Hook shootings:

“How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works? The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk. How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses, even sports stadiums, are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family-our children-we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!"

The Liberal Democrats' response

“Taking guns away from good guys will make them safer from bad guys.”

Now of course….they would never say it that way. But reading between the lines of the dem’s response to this tragedy, that seems to be the implication. Liberals have been fighting for over 30 years to disarm America. Most of this started on a rainy March day back in 1981. President Ronald Reagan was leaving the Hilton Hotel in Washington DC when a deranged man named Jon Hinckley jumped from the crowd and fired several rounds at the presidential entourage. One of the bullets ricocheted off the Presidential limousine and went into Reagan's armpit (he had his arm raised because he was waving). He quickly recovered, but another bullet hit his Press Secretary’s head, permanently paralyzing him. This man’s name was James Brady. As a result of the shooting, Brady and his wife founded the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. Since then, we have had the Columbine massacre, the Virginia tech massacre, the Tucson massacre, the Aurora theater shooting, and now Sandy Hook. I might even mention the Oklahoma city bombing, and September 11th, but since Brady’s organization is technically against gun violence, I will refrain from holding those against his organization.

In all fairness, I must give this organization some points of credit. 1) My complete condolences are with James Brady, who was a victim of violence and did not deserve to spend the rest of his life paralyzed. 2) I am by no means implying that the Brady campaign is the perpetrator of these crimes or that they intentionally caused them. 3) According to disastercenter.com, total violent crime rates have decreased since 1980. But before liberals celebrate victory, total crime may have decreased, but anyone with a reasonable modicum of intelligence can plainly see a recent increase in mass killings. 4) I am not trying to say that we lived in a perfect world prior to the existence of Brady’s organization. “The good old days” were filled with memorable sweethearts such as Adolph Hitler, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy. But these points of credit I have just given gun-control advocates do not change the fact that liberals have the wrong response to the problem of violence, and I am about to show you why.

Holes in the solution

Based on various responses from liberals in the news, it appears to me that there are three doctrines that gun-control advocates hold to:

Number one: “The Creation of public gun-free zones will help stop public violence.”

There is one minor impediment to this theory. Most of the recent massacres that have plagued our nation in recent years were in gun-free zones! The perpetrators of 9/11 carried weapons onto an aircraft, where weapons are not customarily welcomed; the mass murderer bringing an assault rifle into a theater dressed like the joker from Batman caused some raised eyebrows; and the Sandy Hook elementary school was most certainly a gun-free zone. My point is this: gunmen KNOW they are breaking the law when they commit massacres. They do not need to be lovingly informed that it is not customary to bring an assault rifle into a gun-free zone and kill 20 people. I have yet to see a trigger-happy, weapon-laden lunatic walk up to a sign that said "WARNING: gun free zone ahead!" and say, “Uh-oh! Can’t shoot people here…it’s not allowed!"

Another problem with gun-free zones is that they advertise freedom to commit mayhem. It is akin to putting up huge signs that state: ATTENTION! THIS IS THE BEST PLACE TO KILL PEOPLE. DON’T WORRY, NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN HERE SO YOU WON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SOMEONE USING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. The Liberals' defense for these gun-free zones is that if a mass murder were to occur, they would have legal grounds to prosecute the perpetrator since they used their murder weapon in a gun-free zone. Hold on. At that point, could we not simply prosecute the murderer on account of slaughtering 20 people? Do you think that will send him to jail? Or am I missing something?

Number two: “Taking guns away from people will stop violence.”

There are some people in this world who, for reasons known only to themselves, are simply bent on killing people and will accomplish this in any way possible. Timothy McVeigh did a pretty good job of killing 168 people with a homemade bomb. The terrorists hijacked the airplanes on 9/11 using pocket knives (Boy Scouts, hand ‘em over!); serial killer Elias Abuelezem killed a church custodian in Toledo using a hammer; and in a rare case in Texas several months ago, a man crashed his car into a church and then beat the pastor to death using an electric guitar. What about bombs in packages? Water poisoning? Anthrax? People that are determined to kill will always find a way to do it.

Number three: “People don’t really have a reason to have guns. They don’t need them.”

In the event that someone breaks into my house with a loaded shotgun, ready to kill my entire family, a frying pan is not an effective widow-maker. I’d feel much more confident with the frying pan in the kitchen cabinet and the gun in my hand, ready to defend myself and my family! Guns also come in handy for shooting game. Although hunting is no longer required to survive in this country, it is a very popular sport and an economical way to feed your family. You lose a bullet and gain a lot of meat. Now I don’t know much about hunting and don’t pretend to, but it seems to me that it would be much easier to kill a 200-pound buck by shooting it with a gun than by beating it to death with a stick, simply because your government will not let you have a gun! Shooting game also keeps the deer population down, thus saving your Cadillac from the damage done by hitting a horned buck that weighs more than you.

It’s the morality, stupid

My apologies for paraphrasing a liberal democrat. But I think Bill Clinton’s “take a look at what’s right in front of your nose, you moron!” mentality can be quite useful in this situation. I’ve just written a long post defending our rights to own guns. Are you ready for the curve ball? The problem is not in the guns! Guns cannot go out and commit massacres by themselves. A mass murder requires one of two things--an insane person, or an evil, despicable, bloodthirsty individual--to commit these crimes.

In 1962 the liberals in this country got their Number One wish. God, Biblical morality, the Ten Commandments, and effective discipline were kicked out of schools. Prior to this, the definition of a “naughty child” in school was someone who chewed gum in class, ran in the hallways, passed notes, got bad grades, threw spitballs, and pulled on the braids of the girl in front of him. We can only wish that those were the problems today. Although I do not go to public school, I have many friends who do. From them I've learned that the problems today include swearing, gangs, drugs, fights, and teen pregnancy. It seems that even without massacres, our schools are having enough troubles.

In the early 1960’s parents were disturbed that their kids were practicing how to hide under their desks and cover their heads with their hands (known as “duck and cover” drills). These drills were run in some school districts because of the threat of a nuclear attack from the soviets stationed in Cuba. Today, we view that as the height of superstitious Cold War hysteria. A preparation for an Armageddon that never came. Yet according to some public school friends, drills similar to this are done in their schools today. Drills have been done by the city police; using fictitious “shooters.” These drills are done to prepare the teachers and other staff on what to do in this scenario. Do you see the difference? Back in the 1960’s Americans were afraid of an attack from an enemy country. Today, our schools are preparing for attacks, not from enemy countries, but from fellow Americans.

My final point on the issue of morality is this: We have taken God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and Biblical morality out of school teachings and have thus created a recipe for catastrophe. Schools today teach a very pluralistic form of morality. You determine what’s right and what’s wrong for you (i.e. “who’s to say there is only one God” or “who’s to say that gay marriage is wrong?”) There is only one problem with this belief. It leads to a mere exchange of ideas about right versus wrong, with no dependable standard. What do Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden both have in common? They believed that what they were doing was right, that their actions where justifiable according to their circumstances. They saw nothing wrong with what they did. This is the consequence of such warped, humanistic reasoning, rather than reasoning based on a Biblical standard.

Conclusion: (finally! J)

I must agree with the common-sense answer offered by the NRA. “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Liberals state that if these murderers didn’t have the adequate weapons to commit a massacre, the massacre wouldn’t have happened. But they fail to see the reciprocal of this. Suppose more people believed in the right to bear arms, as enshrined in our constitution. Murderers look out! A good country to live in is a country where nobody dares to commit crimes, for fear of freedom-loving people who carry guns, know how to use them, and most importantly are not afraid to use them! A country where armed good guys grossly outnumber armed lunatics? That’s a country I want to live in! How about you?

What is your opinion pertaining to this matter? Please leave a comment and let us know!