~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!
