America, guns not problem; you are

This past Friday a horrific crime and tragedy occurred in a small quiet and idyllic Connecticut town. Twenty beautiful young school children and several adults were murdered. The instrument of their destruction was a deranged young man with no moral center who gave no value to another human life. The tool he used was a gun.

America’s knee-jerk and misguided response will be to blame the tool. You see if America did not blame the tool, the gun, then it would have to take responsibility for creating the monster that used the tool. America, the gun is not the problem, you are.

Look what you have taught two generations of children, many now in their late teens to early 30s.

First, you have taken God out of our schools and taught them that God has no place in our public places. You have done all you can to replace faith in God with faith in government. Your news media and entertainment mock God before these children at every turn.

You have taught them there is no right or wrong. You have robbed them of their moral center and taught them to be the most self-centered of generations. It’s all about me.

If there is no moral center, there is no right or wrong, then I can do as I please. And they do.

A noted physicist once explained that darkness does not exist; it is only how we describe the absence of light. Cold does not exist; it is merely the absence of heat. And evil does not exist unto itself, but exists where there is an absence of God.

But the worst lesson you have taught our children is that life has no value. Today we will mourn desperately the deaths of those 20 children, ages 5 to 8. But we will shed not one tear for the 3,200 children under the age of 3 months who were murdered today.

I know you don’t like the term murder, but that’s what you do when you take an innocent life. You can Google abortion statistics and the latest data shows America murders 1.2 million children, most under 3 months of age, every year.

Divided by 365 days — death takes no holiday — that’s three thousand two hundred children murdered every day at your hands.

Worse yet, you are proud of it. It’s a woman’s right!

What lesson does that teach the survivors, the children we choose to keep? They learn that life has very little or no value if that life is going to be inconvenient to us.

As a society we are teaching them that killing an unborn child is perfectly acceptable if the child being born would in any way interfere with our life and happiness.

Life becomes cheap and disposable to these children as they grow into young adults. If killing a child of 3 months is OK, why not 3 years, why not 10 years? Life has no value.

Look at the games you allow your children to play. The most popular video game today is one titled something like “Call of Duty.” You score points by killing people. The more you kill the higher your score.

Again, you can Google the 10 most violent video games and see the blood and gore that numbs the young mind to the value of life. These games help you teach them that life has no value. Yet we allow, if not encourage, them to play these games hour after hour.

I would bet a large sum of money that the young monster in Connecticut was a violet video game aficionado. But you will hear no outcry for “video game control.”

America, I know you don’t want to hear this, but the gun is not the problem. You are. We are.

If we could magically remove every firearm in this country, but not restore the value of life as our moral compass, we will have achieved nothing. Man’s inhumanity to man existed long before gun powder and the Colt revolver.

We must teach our children that God — yes, God — gave us our life, and God values each life beyond measure. There is right and wrong.

Give them a moral center. Teach our children it’s not about how the world treats you, but how you treat the world.

By the way, America, when you stop killing 3,000 children a day, I’ll talk to you about gun control.

And Merry Christmas to you.

Briggs Arrington

Fayetteville, Ga.

dawgday
dawgday's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2010
Mental Health

There are a few basic tenants of our country/society/culture, and good, bad or indifferent, guns are part of the American way, much as freedom to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process of law, etc. I would contend that no sensible, practical person would walk into a place of business, a school, his home and gun down a fellow citizen, a friend or a family member. They have to be either with criminal intent, which we will never solve as it is just the limits of man, or deranged. I would argue that we can help the deranged, or at least provide help that we may divert or intervene in such events. The problem is that mental health in this country has been placed in the bottom tier, if not at the bottom, of funding at the local, state and federal levels. Expenditures have not kept pace with the nature of mental illness, with most community programs being grossly underfunded or disappearing. Until we as a country, address the mental health of this country, the irrational will continue to commit irrational acts, the most heinous of which is to kill a child. A gun has never, to my knowledge of course, jumped out of closet after loading itself and shot someone. The gun is an integral part of the crime of murder/ suicide/armed robbery, but unless we address the root cause, mental health, gun control is little more than putting a band aid on a gangrenous appendage. You cannot see it, but it is still there until it finally kills you.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
View the Video on Gun Control

http://youtu.be/iDivHkQ2GSg

Then tell us how it will be good for America...

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
My Quandary in this gun debate.

Here is my quandary. Everyone keeps talking of how the "packin citizens" will start blazing away and inadvertently causing collateral damage. Hmmmm I can cite numerous cases of armed citizen thwarting criminals in public and in private. How many cases of an armed citizen or multiple armed citizens blazing away at a criminal and causing mass carnage can anyone cite? Very few if any. All of these weapons and their magazines are currently legal and being carried and or used for personal and home defense and have been for some time now.
Here is an interesting statistic for the anti-gun group.

Civilians stopped shooting average 2.3 deaths, 911 response average, 14.3 deaths (84% reduction)

OKC _Fed _Building bombing

Bath_School_disaster

Cokeville_Elementary_School_hostage_crisis

1976_Chowchilla_kidnapping

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Veritas-I agree
Quote:

Everyone keeps talking of how the "packin citizens" will start blazing away and inadvertently causing collateral damage.

This is what people all across America said when Kennesaw passed their gun law. But as we've seen it has been quite the opposite.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Veritas- g35 - they said the same thing

in florida when they changed the permit language from "may" issue to "shall" issue. The libs said it was going to be the OK corral on every corner and there would be blood in the streets. Even the state dems had to admit they were surprised when it didnt happen like they thought.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/florida_crime_r.php

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
We have to take the long term view

Two examples of citizens getting carried away with guns: Trevon Martin and Jordan Davis, victims. There are others.

It is myopic to argue whether any change will help tomorrow. A ban on the sale of assault weapons and large capacity clips will not, but 10 years down the road it will. The change that will cost the least but get the most resistance is a change in attitude and that one is the most important.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
rolling stoned- Are you judge and jury?
Quote:

Two examples of citizens getting carried away with guns: Trevon Martin and Jordan Davis, victims. There are others.

I wasn't aware that the Trevon Martin case had been decided? I guess you know the details that the rest of us are still waiting to hear play out in a court of law.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
G35 Dude: no, I just have a good command of the language

victim: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.

FYI: Trevon had just as much right to stand his ground.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Facts not in Evidence

Really?

Wow.. so let me see. If you saw someone exit your Garage with say your Air Compressor and you followed that person while calling the Police and they turned around and confronted you, starting beating you, broke your nose and was bashing your head against the sidewalk... they would be a victim by your definition if you stopped them from hurting you?

Hmmm....hope you are never on a Jury in such a trial.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: I agree
Quote:

If you saw someone exit your Garage with say your Air Compressor and you followed that person while calling the Police and they turned around and confronted you, starting beating you, broke your nose and was bashing your head against the sidewalk... they would be a victim by your definition if you stopped them from hurting you?

I totally agree, those facts are not in evidence and as to your source of logic....I need help with that one. Is there an anthropologist in the house?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Calling Martin a "victim" presupposes Zimmerman Guilt...

...Just using your own logic Stone.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: please pay attention

I did not state or infer that Trevon was the victim of a crime; that of course remains to be determined. I did state, accurately, given the obvious and undisputed facts, that Trevon was the victim of a gunshot.

You may have the last word now.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Stoney

Please reread my post and pay close attention. First I stated if you could find examples of they would be few. Then the two you attempt you did so inaccurately . Trevon and Davis scenarios ... neither fit the "wild west shoot out scenario " in response to a criminal attack/shooting with collateral damage that liberals such as yourself predict.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Veritas

I have noticed that in large part a conservative's response is to what you wish someone had said, not what they did say. Mine was a stand alone statement about getting carried away with guns. Although with the Jordon Davis incident, if putting 8 to 9 shots into a occupied van is not blazing away I do not know what would be.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I rest my case Stone...
rolling stone wrote:

Two examples of citizens getting carried away with guns: Trevon Martin and Jordan Davis, victims. There are others.

rolling stone wrote:

I did not state or infer that Trevon was the victim of a crime;

So what was he a "Victim" of?

AirForceDude
AirForceDude's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2006
Guns may not the problem to

Guns may not the problem to you. However, guns are an integral part of the problem. Easy access to assault weapons and high capacity magazines is the major part of the problem. Second Amendment rights is in dire need of re-definition. I see no valid reason that assault weapon belong in the hands of any civilian. These weapons were designed for mass killing and they do that well. Those who are mentally challenged must not be allowed to have access to them. This is 2012, not 1776. We have police and excellent military forces. Yes there are criminals who break into homes. Allowing all citizens to carry guns in public places such as churches, parks, movies, malls, and shopping centers will not stop crime. I'm more worried that those individuals who are "packing" a gun will go off and start shooting all around him. Arming school teachers is not a viable alternative. School security should be reviewed and increased if necessary. As far as Mr. Arrington's statement about abortions, remember it was a Christian preacher who murdered a physician at a Pensacola Abortion Clinic due to his religious beliefs. This is a complex problem that requires much thought and planning if we are going to stop these murders.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Dude

Your rationale for a rewrite of the Second Amendment belies the perception that you fear freedom for anyone perhaps other than yourself. Your point about access to assault weapons makes little sense in the New Hope case since a shotgun is a much better 'assault' weapon at close range (Lanza) and are available for most anyone in America. Taking your logic a bit further, would you deny a farmer the right to purchase fertilizer, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh?

The answer lies with the adherence to principles such as taking responsibility for gun ownership like making sure it's secured and maintained at all times. We do not need a rewrite of an 'outdated' Constitution, we need to adhere to the principles that those who wrote that document lived by which are simply ignored by many in our current society.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
airforce dude - saying things like that highlight your ignorance

about what the founding fathers intentions were. The bill of rights are solely concerned with protecting individual liberty. You saying that

AirForceDude wrote:

Second Amendment rights is in dire need of re-definition. I see no valid reason that assault weapon belong in the hands of any civilian.

is like me saying that I think the 5th amendment should be re written and criminals should have to incriminate themselves. I think the 4th amendment should be re written since crime is so out of control the cops shouldnt need warrants for searches anymore. I think the first amendment should be re written, because all these religions are hurting my brain, so if the government could just pick an official one for me that would be great. The first Epistolary Church of Obama perhaps? just a suggestion. You dont get to cherry pick which part of the constitution you want to wreck. You dont get to decide how other people excercise their freedoms. Based on your name, I am assuming you were in the military. Didn't you swear an oath to defend and protect the constitution? There was nothing in that oath that said, "only protect the parts you like." I know, I took it myself.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Do you even know the percentage those scary guns are used?

Less then 5%. That's right Dude and Stone less then 5% of all mass Murders occurred using a "Scary" gun... Additionally according to the FBI Stats the most rounds fired per mag was 10 so hi-cap mags where not the issue either.

Funny how when you take emotions out of the equations those facts just start glaring at you.

btw-dude how many incidences have there been of someone

Quote:

"packing" a gun will go off and start shooting all around him.

Seems like you have a lot of rhetoric and scare mongering but little else.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: Regarding supporting revised gun legislation

I suppose I will have to list you as doubtful.

By the way, myself and a few million others will gladly accept a 4% reduction in mass murders.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Just showing you stone what real facts are...

...and not knee jerk emotional reactions.

With 200 YEARS worth of guns already in America do you think anything meaningful will actually occur?

Not likely...

btw- Look here... Fist and Feet has killed more people then Rifles.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/w620-afe014391829c852...

AirForceDude
AirForceDude's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2006
Guns are not the problem.

Erroneous double post,

AirForceDude
AirForceDude's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2006
Guns are not the problem.

Erroneous double post

mgarlow
mgarlow's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2008
America and Guns

I agree with you that people kill people. The two variables in the discussion are guns and people. I would see that there is an agreement that people with guns kill people. So, in order to fix this problem, we need to see that guns are kept away from people, or that people are kept away from guns. The two don't seem to mix well.
Do you agree?

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Criminal minded people and guns don't mix..I agree..

Do you have a solution for that? I certainly don't think disarming all the law abiding citizens is a good one.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
spyglass- a suggestion

criminal minded people intentionally circumvent laws, so more laws is not the answer to that. I think the bigger issue is the mentaly unstable individual. my best suggestion is to pass a law saying that if you have a person with mental health issues ( depression, bipolar, schizo, personality disorder, whatever), or a condition that can sometimes lead to outbursts of violence (like aspergers- which apparently the sandy hook guy had) then you may not have a firearm of any kind in your home. period, end of story, misdemenor first offence, felony second offense. If you still want to own them, fine, rent a storage locker somewhere and store them away from the crazy person. Or, if having guns in your house for self protection is that important to you, have the person with the mental issues put in home or have them live somewhere else. You have the freedom, and you have the choice. But what you do not get to do is have a potentially violent unstable person in house full of guns, be it assault rifles or pellet pistol. The risk to society, as we have seen too often, is too great and trumps your right to have your cake and eat it too. I would be completely fine with that as a new gun law. Rights come with responsibility.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Renalt

I so agree with everything you said.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
suggarfoot- its the most common sense thing

I can think of. New gun laws wont work, the old ones didnt. The supreme court ruled you can ban an entire class of guns commonly used for defense, which i think assault rifles fall into that category. So what else is there to address? Sane ordinary people dont do this kind of thing. criminals rob and steal and murder, but not like Sandy Hook. That is insanity all the way. We can say things like felons may not have guns, so i think it would be fine to say that if you have a mentaly unstable person, you can own guns, you just cant keep them in the house.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
No..mgarlow Cars with people kill people too...

...so do we need to keep people away from cars, as well?

http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Leading-Cause-o...

This chart shows you that Homicides are NOT the leading cause of death in ALL categories and ages. Is it higher then it should be...yep. Humans have been killing humans since we walked out of Eden and that has not abated not one bit.

There are more guns in America then there are car owners in America yet deaths per capita, cars kill more people then guns. If you look at the stats Cigarettes and Alcohol both kill more people then guns so...... I don't here calls for banning Jack Daniels and Chevys.

Mr. Arrington is correct in that those that believe life, all life, is a gift from God are usually not the ones wanting to take that life.

mgarlow
mgarlow's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2008
Cars and People

Pettifogging will get you nowhere. Cars were not designed to kill. They were built as a form of transportation. The unintended consequences of deaths on the highways are usually the result of unsafe conditions or reckless operation. Guns, on the other hand, are specifically designed to propel bits of metal at high rates against a target. What those targets are depends on the person who is shooting. One intended consequence of a gun is to shoot people, with the intention to maim and kill. A car has a VIN that is registered to a specific owner, and records are kept as the car changes ownership. People are licensed to operate cars, and licensing and registration of vehicles is a constant and ongoing operation. Guns, which people operate, sadly don't even get the attention that vehicles do. Therein lies the tragic difference between guns and cars. If guns were as regulated as cars, maybe we would not have the level of unintended tragic consequences that we have now. I would think that gun owners would welcome this level of concern on the guns. It is not a suspicion of you or other law-abiding citizens. In order to keep a sane level of peace, each one of us has to be concerned about others who come into possession of a gun and how they behave. We cannot perceive the 2nd Amendment as a selfish individual right. That amendment carries with it responsibility, and the accountability and responsibility rests with each individual in collective agreement with others to prevent the abuse of gun ownership and violence. Refusal to accept that responsibility is as dangerous as the shooter pulling the trigger.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
mgarlow are there not laws that cover responsibility?

Because I am sure if I use my gun irresponsibility I will be charged with a crime so...

...and why do I have to give up my Rights to make sure someone else doesn't abuse the use of their gun?

You want to change the 2nd...then go through the Amendment process. That is how our system of Government is supposed to work, not give a knee jerk reaction to events.

mgarlow
mgarlow's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2008
Changing the 2nd Amendment

Since you brought it up, yes, I am working on a petition that I will submit and hope to get started. I know it will take some bit of time, but I am patient, and will keep working. This is what I propose:

AS WRITTEN
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.
AS REVISED
The right of the people to keep and bear arms with a well regulated militia for the security of a free state shall not be infringed.

I doubt if you are going to wish me luck, but I think this is a start. I've revised it, rearranged the words and only have 26 words instead of the original 27.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well good luck mgarlow....

..getting 2/3rds of the State Legislatures to ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. Then getting 3/4ths to vote for it.

PTC Avenger
PTC Avenger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/08/2008
You sound like you belong to

You sound like you belong to the Westboro Baptist Church.

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Theism and violence

Obviously Christians don't ever hurt people, but it's possible non-Christians can be moral too. I personally know of several atheists who haven't murdered anyone yet.

Recent Comments