First off, and above all else, my thoughts and prayers are with those directly affected by the shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe Texas, and to all of the Police Officers, ATF agents, Deputies and State Police who responded and entered the school. It was a horrible murder spree by [apparently] two kids.
Secondly, I am hesitant to write this so soon after this horrible event, but thanks to people like Hogg, it makes it necessary as the wheels of falsification, misinformation, ignorance and outright lies I am certain are already spinning in full force. They will not be happy, nor will the wheels stop, until every American citizen is disarmed. Which makes it ever more important to rebut those spinning wheels of falsification, misinformation, ignorance and lies, with truth, and begin discussions on the real issues that are leading to these events, and hopefully find real solutions to the problem, and not band-aids.
For evidence of this push, head to Twitter.com and look at trending (at the time of this writing), and you will see hash-tag guncontrolnow. What is ironic about that trending hash tag, is there is not one that says, “family now.” Or, “respectlifenow.”
Why is it that these liberals do not want to solve the root of the problem? Because they want nothing more than to control. They want to control what you eat (take “soda” bans in NY.) They want to control what your children eat, overriding what you as a parent give your child (take MO’s enforcement of food items at schools. (Michelle Obama’s Intrusive School Nutrition Agenda)) They want to confiscate your guns, despite what the public facing talking heads would proclaim (North Carolina Democrat Will Introduce a Gun Confiscation Bill, Boulder Ban, Deerfield Ban) These are just a very few examples of liberal control. People that share opposing views are outright ignored when liberals have power. Evidence Gwen Stouder during the Boulder “hearings.” (Gwen Stouder of Longmont Colorado gives a powerful pro-second amendment speech in the face of a deaf gun grabbing city council in Boulder Colorado who just passed a ban on their definition of assault weapons.)
Liberals would rather repeal the 2nd Amendment than to address the real issues. Issues that they have created and contributed to. They continue to argue, in contrast to writings, documented speeches, and letters from the time, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of the 2nd Amendment protecting individual rights to bare arms.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands” – Patrick Henry
Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention, on June 09, 1788. “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution”. Book edited by Jonathan Elliot, volume 3, p. 168-169, 1836.
One such quote is from James Madison, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) From George Mason, “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788) Here is one from Patrick Henry, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778) Here is another, “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such are well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” (State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)) And finally, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” (Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788)
These are but a few of the many.
Despite what Robert Parry and others would say, that the history of the 2nd Amendment is “fake“, there is overwhelming evidence of what the Founding Fathers’ intentions were. It was to protect citizens’ ability to bear and keep arms. Strangely enough, the Founding Father’s put no limitation to what arms are acceptable either. They had ample opportunity to add a clause that military grade weapons were not protected under the 2nd Amendment for citizen use. Yet, they did not. They did not, because they believed that “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is a plethora of evidence in historical documents what the Founding Fathers intention was for the 2nd Amendment, just s there is a plethora of evidence that liberals want to take away that Constitutional Right, and control every other aspect of your life. Perhaps it’s in the pretense of “security”, or “what is best for you.” Back in 2013, Michael Goodwin penned an interesting article for the New York Post outlining the warnings given to us from the Founding Fathers on tyranny. In it, he states, “Are we closer today to the ideals of liberty, or to the tyranny the Founders warned would follow the death of those ideals?” (Founding Fathers’ warnings powerful reminder amid government crisis) He also pens, “The same sense of self-gratification and entitlement that infects our culture rules our politics.” Extraordinarily accurate for the culture of the day, and it has only gotten worse in the five years since.
No, guns are not the issue. I have never seen a gang of AK-47’s walking down the street looking to shoot people. I have never seen a gun fire a bullet without a person pulling the trigger. Guns are a scapegoat for liberals to cover up and not address the issues that they have created. The culture that they have created.
The first part of real issue that needs to be addressed lies partly in the profound statement, “The same sense of self-gratification and entitlement that infects our culture rules our politics.” (Founding Fathers’ warnings powerful reminder amid government crisis)
No person on this earth is entitled to anything other than “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (The exception that I see would be to those that have risked their lives for the country, any U.S. Veteran or active duty, Law Enforcement Officer or Firefighter.)
Laziness is often disguised as “entitlement” which is then used to justify laziness, and getting angry at those that achieve.
The second part of the real issue that needs to be addressed also lies in the moral compass of American citizens. The “norm” that has been introduced by hollywood elites, either by their actions, or the portrayal on television and in movies. Norms that show that killing people, killing Law Enforcement officers is somehow glorious. Glorifying violence in all aspects. That drug use and distribution is glorious (i.e. Breaking Bad.)
Hollywood continues to produce and glorify violence, while at the same time, the elites are demeaning average Americans, and especially Christians. They encourage immorality, both through their films, television shows, YouTube videos and their own behavior. They portray that criminality is okay, and that those that uphold laws are evil. From 2008 to 2016, this was also portrayed from Pennsylvania Ave., as was evidenced by responses to a criminal that attempted to kill a Law Enforcement Officer and was shot and killed.
The third part of the real issue that needs to be addressed is the ousting of God from all things in American culture. It is now taboo, and on the verge of illegal, to say Jesus Christ or God in public. References to God are being removed from public places. On Christmas, which is specifically a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus, not “winter break” or any other nonsense, we are being told that Nativity scenes cannot be displayed because someone walking by may be offended. People against the public displays of crosses, Nativity scenes and Bible versus often quote some of the Founding Fathers out of context, attempting to present they “built a wall between Church and State.”
“In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
That however, is inaccurate, at best, and a gross attempt at manipulation at worst.
“The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: “wall of eternal separation between church and state” and “the duties of my station, which are merely temporal.” These last words — “merely temporal” — revealed Jefferson’s preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. “Eternal separation” and “merely temporal” — here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their “religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
“Jefferson heeded Lincoln’s advice, with the result that he deleted the entire section about thanksgivings and fasts in the Danbury draft, noting in the left margin that the “paragraph was omitted on the suggestion that it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings etc. by their Executives is an antient habit & is respected.” Removed in the process of revision was the designation of the president’s duties as “merely temporal”; “eternal” was dropped as a modifier of “wall.” (emphasis added) Jefferson apparently made these changes because he thought the original phrases would sound too antireligious to pious New England ears.
In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
“One of the nation’s best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, “contrary to all former practice,” Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists “a wall of separation between church and state”; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services “constantly.”” (‘A Wall of Separation’, JAMES HUTSON, https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
It is apparent with Mr. Jefferson’s beliefs, and staunch critic of fasts and thanksgivings (as to him it was a tradition of the Crown), drove his response to the Letter from the Danbury Baptists, and was never meant to suggest that religion was unwelcome in government, or in public. But rather, as the First Amendment spells out in black and white, that Government would create no laws that created a national religion or to limit the free exercise of religion. His actions also spoke to that.
Mind you as well, this letter written to him was a more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.
As a final note on this, the Danbury letter was written due to the fear that government was “granting” the Baptists the right to exercise their religion, and that they (the state legislature) did not view it as an inalienable right.
Addressing these three items, Entitlement, Glorifying Crime, and a Godless Society (most emphasis on Godless Society), I believe would go a long way.