 |
|
|
|
December 16th, 2012
09:56 AM ET
Huckabee: Lack of religion in classroom leads to violence in schools(CNN) - Responding to the deadly mass shooting Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said new laws regulating guns won't deter such shootings, linking a lack of religious discussion in the classroom to increased violence in schools. "We ask why there's violence in our school but we've systematically removed God from our schools," Huckabee said on Fox News. "Should we be so surprised that schools have become such a place of carnage? Because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability." "That we're not just gonna have to be accountable to the police if they catch us but one day we stand before a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that," he said. "People are going to want to pass new laws," Huckabee continued. "This is a heart issue ... laws don't change this kind of thing." FULL STORY |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Damocles, I did answer your question. You didn't like my answer. OK, I'll play your game. If God came and resolved all the man made problems in the world, why would man need to be here? Think about all that you are asking. God made man to follow his righteous truth so that we can love him. With that said, if everyone in the world did what God asked us to do, none of the complaints you brought up would exist. Since, everyone does not believe in God, problems exist.
God Bless you.
Why the fvck does a supreme, all-knowing, all-powerful being require runts like us to "believe in him" and "worship him?" Sounds like a really insecure twerp to me.
If that's the kind of weenie you want to bow down to, be my guest.
@+
If a deity wanted worshippers, one worshipper would have sufficed. If your deity requires all 7B people on this planet to worship it, it is a glory hound at the least. Now let's keep looking at this.... your deity made angels and 1/3 of them rebelled, that's a failure on its part. It supposedly created A&E, another failure. It does not have a unifying theme amongst its followers, causing strife and discord amongst the people. You can not go along and blithely say 'ohhh that's all us humans fault'. That argument is a weak copout.
Now, my question was how many pieces of bread has your deity caused to magically appear before a child that was in imminent danger of dying by starvation and your answer was.....??
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, God created all to love and be loved. It's that simple. God gave us all free will to use as we want. Satan has free will too. God created him with all the gifts he could give. Satan took those gifts and turned them against God.
Do you love God? if not, are you using the free will he gave you to go a against him? God made life simple, man makes life difficult.
God Bless you.
Nice try, as swipe. Answer the question. Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing being need/require his creation to love and worship him and punish them with eternal damnation if they don't?
Either ante up or fold, moron.
"God made man to follow is righteous truth so that we might love him."
Sounds like a completely needy and self-serving creature. If that's the only reason we're here, why did he bother? You idiots never answer the question. What is this? Just another x-box for his amusement and pleasure? Why should I play?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, because that's how he created all. If you were him, how would you make all? Would you force them to do what they are to do?
@+
Here's the rub, +. As a created being you wouldn't know the difference if you had not been given this supposed free will and were just a robotic worshipper. A deity has no need to toss in something like free will because you simply wouldn't know what you were missing.
Damocles, but, he did give us free will. He didn't make us robots to force us to love Him. He allows us to choose. It pleases him when we choose him.
God Bless you.
Not what I asked. Answer the question. What is the point? Why create a world that is doomed to fail and then damn your creation when it does what you designed it to do?
Why make fallible humans, tempt them and then punish them for eternity when they succu mb to the natural bent you created in them? What for? Amusement? Why make them at all if only to worship you? And cast them into hell if they see no reason to do so, after you visit them with death, pain, fear?
Tom, Tom,
"Why make fallible humans, tempt them and then punish them for eternity when they succu mb to the natural bent you created in them?"
Not only that, but The Omniscient One is also supposed to know their fates BEFORE he creates them ... and does it anyway!
@+
That's some fancy footwork you are displaying by dancing around my question.
So he's not pleased by someone just being a good person, he likes us submissive. How many husbands and wives could get away with that argument? It's ok, you can cha cha or mambo your way around that question too.
1...2... cha cha cha..... 1...2...avoid that question
@+,
You have a fantasy monster on your hands. Quite hideous.
I'll get back to you with my answers. Give me a while because I'm in the middle of doing something else. When I am through, you will be able to read my answers. Until then, practice patience, for it is a virtue.
God Bless all.
For sure I'm panting in anticipation.
You don't have any answers. People like you always pull this stunt: "I'm busy just now, but I'll get back to you."
Baloney. There ARE no answers. If there were, you'd have them at the ready. You wouldn't need to think about them. They'd be obvious.
They're not there.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, the point is, that is how he created all. Everything he created is so intricate and pure and mostly beyond human comprehension. You can study his truth for your entire life and you will only reach a tip of his truth, but, at least you tried. Therefore, I suggest you ask him your question when you meet him. Until then, I will continue to practice what I've learned so far of what he's taught me.
God doesn't damn the world. He told you that if you refuse his truth you are damned. For example, you are telling me that in order to figure out how to complete a calculus equation, you are refusing to learn the basics of math, never mind the level of calculus. What's the odds that you will pass if you don't learn how to construct your thoughts into the mathematical equation? If you don't pass, do you blame the teacher for your refusal to learn what is required? If you want to do something, you try your best to learn what is required. Same with God. We learn what is required to please him. In pleasing him, we excel at what he wants for us.
We are all fallible (all sinners), but, some of us know that we are to try our best not to stay in sin by studying and abiding in what he teaches. That is called faith.
As I stated, throughout the Bible you will read about believers and nonbelievers. Adam and Eve listened to Satan's lies which went against God's truth even though God told them before they met Satan what to do and what not to do. It's the same today. Believing or not believing in what God told us to do.
God Bless you.
Damocles, I'm not doing fancy footwork. You don't like my answers so you're pointing at me and making it out that I am skirting the questions instead of taking responsibility that even though you don't like my answers, I answered just the same.
God Bless you.
Prey, I'm not the one that has the “monster” lies leading my life.
God Bless you.
+ " God gave us all free will to use as we want"
So you admit it. Your god does nothing to intervene in this world. His actions are exactly the same as if he didn't exist.
I actually used to use this guy as an example of one of the smarter of the religious extremists. I don't know now whether I was wrong about that or whether he's just more willing now to be blatantly opportunistic, perhaps because of his own assessment of the intelligence of his followers.
when you sleep with FOXs you'll get.........
@Saraswati,
Like O'Reilly, Mike Huckabee is smarter than the average bear on Fox News. He is articulate.
However, once a preacher, always a preacher. This leopard cannot change it's stripes.
Sorry – spots. I had half intended a pun and forgot to change it.
Stripes?
Saraswati, reflect on what that says about you.
So Mr. Huckabee, what leads to all the violence in churches? Must be God isn't there either right?? In the past 11 years there have been 18 shootings in churches in the U.S. .(google it.) 55 dead...35 injured.....you sir are a fool!
He kinda ignored the fact that the killer had gone to a religious school, complete with prayer and indoctrination, for a couple years.
But he's just trying to divert attention away from the gun question. He owes the NRA for the campaign contributions, so he has to do their bidding now.
@Tduimstra
Indeed so.
The Universally-Formed Multiple Cosmos of Triune Manifestation
We all live amid two chasms of cosmological orders. We have the inner-cosmos and the outer-cosmos. The inner-cosmos is atomically made and is the universal construct of the outer-cosmos. One could not have an outer cosmos without there being an inner cosmos. Both are synonymously of the same natures. It stands to reason the inner-cosmos was made first and the outer-cosmos came into being only after the passive finalization of the inner-cosmos was made near complete. The inner-cosmos is transcendent and fixed while the outer-cosmos is ascendant and malleable in their dualities natures.
The third cosmos is of life itself made from the inner-cosmos living upon the terrestrial planetary faces of the celestial outer-cosmos. This third cosmos is the celled cosmos or the cellular cosmologic orders duly ordained of and by and even for all life forms to be made anywhere cellular life can gain a foothold to evolve and gain in the abundant natures toward the evolution of its structures ever evolving in base pairings. Without the two main Cosmos coming into existence; living cellular cosmologies could not ever exist.
The trinity or threefold nature of chasm cosmologies is being one of the greatest and grandest gestures ever to have been formulated! To say God had nothing to do with such a feat of cosmologic inter-dependencies seems an infallible congruency inconsistent for one to say or think otherwise. To say the nature of God is to keep inflating the physical elements of the outer cosmos while deflating the essence needs for the inner-cosmos leaves one to wonder about the third cosmological construct’s real nature for having been created. Why then is there cellular cosmos of living cosmologies and when did such life become established?
The history of multifaceted cosmological expansionism within celestial symmetries comes from the terrestrial complacencies of planetary regularities and solarized objectivism wherever the abundance of inner cosmologies coalesces to form stars, planets and moons among many other fragmented structures within the spatial confines of a universally formed Cosmos.
Life, upon the celestial shorelines of the terrestrially compliant are as a biologic ‘cellularistic’ cosmological constant, and were ever formed and are continually forming seemingly unto forever as well placed living conglomerations in naturalisms arcades of wondrous cavalcades marching in steps of melancholy tributes to God upon the most high cosmos of universally formidable formations on the highest of unimaginable grounds!
Any questions?
Obviously a use of the "Post-modernist-rubbish-generator".
1) Huckabee is a fool; may the living God remove the scales from his eyes and give him an understanding of the society we need to rebuild.
2) When the Founders drafted the 2nd Amendment, gun technology was at the muzzle loading flintlock stage. One wonders what their actions might have been had they any conception of the future firepower of a SigSauer semi auto with a 30 round quick change clip and laser sights in the average citizen's hands, much less that of an UZI or AK47.
3) There are too many damn guns floating around the US; period, end of sentence.
@Johnmichael,
the second amendment is all about the militia myth. It begins with the English reaction to Cromwell's New Model Army, that 'standing armies' were bad.
The American militias were given way to much credit in the afterglow of the revolution when the 2nd amendment was created and were a complete fiasco as soon as the War of 1812.
We have a standing army now. We don't need a militia and we don't need the 2nd amendment.
spit on my face, I am ashamed to be a Hackubee's gun clinging goon
Everybody I'm arguing with, I'm leaving now to watch my Blu Ray copy of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, so happy Christmas, or Happy Holidays if you're really that up your own ass about the word Christmas.
So sorry to see you so up your own ass about the phrase "happy holidays."
Your name doesn't match your comments. You sound more like a Talibangelical.
I'm not theistic but I'm with rational here. It cracks me up that people want to replace "Christmas" with a shortened version of "Holy Days" and call it neutral. Just get over it...no one gives a cr@p that we're honoring the goddess Easter every spring, why should we care any more about this Christ guy. Treat them all the same and forget about it.
That's silly. " Holiday" means "day off" to modern humans. It no more means "holy day" to most people than "gay" means "happy".
"Happy holidays" pays respect to everybody, instead of snubbing those outside the majority. And guess what? It was the Christians who actually started "happy holidays", not to be religiously inclusive (not one of their fortes), but because there are two holidays, not one. You know, New Years.
@Lisa, if a Christian isn't bothered by calling their "holiday" Easter, why should I care about calling my secular holiday "Christmas". It just makes 1) everyone else sound whiny and 2) it seem like there really is something special about "Christmas". Hell, I celebrate Thors day once a week, not to mention several other days named for gods. Should I cancel those too?
You missed the point. You may call your holiday what you like – I call ours Christmas too. But I would never say Merry Christmas to a Jew, and I definitely would not think the problem was their for not liking that I did that. I prefer Happy Holidays because I don't know what many of the people I say it to actually prefer, and it is just rude to potentially insult them by making it Christmas. And I do mean both holidays when I say it.
You "celebrate" thursdays, do you. R i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ght. I totally believe that. You get all dressed up, drive to Aunt Edna's house, exchange Thor gifts and have a nice Thor feast.
Yeah. Nice one.
@Lisa, I don't "celebrate" Thursday, but I hear "Happy Thursday" and "Happy Friday" every day from my local radio hosts. They happen once a week. Christmas is a day that happens once a year. People can be "happy" on that day whether or not they celebrate it. I don't care a bit if someone tells me to have a happy ... what ... Diwali, Eid, whatever. If it's a day that's out there I don't care. Heck, I'd celebrate them all in a secular way if I could (I love a party); in fact that's exactly what I think we should be promoting.
So you are promoting happy holidays for everyone. But you are against saying happy holidays. Yeah.
"I celebrate Thors day once a week" "I don't "celebrate" Thursday." R i i i i i ight.
People; Do not credit the deaths of the Newtown twenty to the removal of God from the schools of the United States. While the two events are related, they are distinctly NOT down to the U.S government. These two acts were perpetrated by the most evil mind in the universe. That of Satan the Devil. This is serious. Every sick act perpetrated since Noah came out of the ark has been down to this one character.
The reason he is doing this is discussed in Revelation/Apocalypse chapter 12. Since the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, the Devil has been cast out of heaven down to the earth. His aim now is to distract you and stop YOU from hearing the preaching of the good news of God's Kingdom. If you don't hear that message and respond to it, you wind up losing out on paradise life in God's New World. (Matt. 24:14) Remember it must be about "God's kingdom," NOT about opening your heart and letting Jesus in, or having a "spiritual experience," or finding God, or Jesus. Only one religious group on earth talks about the Kingdom, so they shouldn't be hard to find, and may even find you. As a matter of fact it's about the only religious organization that won't ask you for money. [That's one of the things that attracted me.]
I like Satan. He fights against tyranny.
I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the person who pulled the trigger. Why would it be any other way?
Damocles and myself seem to be on the same wavelength tonight. If I was a hippy d.ouchebag I'd say we had a cosmic connection, but thankfully I'm not.
Satan is an NRA card carrying member 😉
@RL
Now that would be a true sign of the end of days if you went all hippy on us. 🙂
@Rational, not sure about Satan, but the original Lucifer was pretty cool. Got to love those gods of knowledge.
I hate to say it, but this is going to create a lot of new atheists. First the senseless killing of children, and now people like Mike Huckabee bellowing about how it's because their religion isn't being forced upon schoolchildren.
It's a one-two punch. All those doubting god because of the massacre are getting further alienated by the feculent claims of people like Mr. Huckabee.
Doubtful. They will just say something along the lines of 'oh he's not a true believer' and move on.
Yep, I expect the No True Scotsman fallacy to be bandied about, even though I personally believe a person's religious beliefs are usually irrelevant in a situation like this.
Huckabee, opportunist, proves over and over again, how much you can trust politicians, lairs!!!
Does Huck want the kids to study Bible teachings like Psalm 137:9 which teaches, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Or maybe Huck wants the kids to study Numbers 31:17-18 where Moses orders the Israeli army to " kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." There are many other anti-child teachings in the Bible.
Huckabee makes it clear that the American revolutionary and Deist Thomas Paine was right when he called for a revolution in religion based on our God-given reason and Deism in his thought provoking book on God, Deism and religion, The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition.
Progress! Bob Johnson
http://www.deism.com
I fully understand the need for people to mourn and maybe religion plays a part in that. But all I hear is God the "kind", "merciful", "good", "loving", etc. If there was a god it would be none of these. This all powerful myth would stop the mass shootings but does nothing. After each disaster the brainwashed public pray to this non existent being that did nothing. That is the definition of just plain crazy.
On gun control, those really responsible are simply found. They are the voters that elect a Congress and state legislatures supported by the NRA and the vast stupidity of more guns and assault weapons. They are mostly Republicans. Blame them and get rid of them.
I don't think, though, that even the Christians really all believe their god is all powerful. A lot of them view it as a fight between god and satan, or that god doesn't have power over "free will" (yes, a concept that makes no sense, but assume it as a premise). If you remove the "all powerful" element it does make a little bit more sense.
Our God knows of all our pains,
Our God loves yet He refrains.
My God is your God too,
Your God is my God ever so true.
Their God is our God one and the same,
God cares for all creatures even the lame.
You are an idiot.
That's an insult to idiots, me.
He's a wet brain, an alcoholic who damaged his brain so badly that even sober he cannot return to normal.
Hitchens was also an alcoholic, yet he was brilliant and erudite.
Alcoholic, brilliant, erudite. Well, I got one out of three.
@LL, Never mind those idiots ; keep the lettuce love going 🙂
Zingo,
Normality is a state of being. Normal is a contrite conscience. Being normal versus normally being is a question of character. The normality of the abnormal regulates societal boundaries commonalities. Abnormalities recognized are a normality of suggestions betrayals normally admonished by ones faith whereby faithfulness of word and in deed becomes the sanctions aired.
The blackened lionylamb is a false lionlylamb for the true blue one is very blue in colors abundancies
Compaq,
I had one I did I did! Was my very first computer it was! Oh how the years have passed on by!
It's not "religion" he's talking about. It's HIS religion. It this were Muslims insisting on THEIR religion be taught in the classroom, Huckabee would be peeing his pants. This is NOT a theocracy. The origins or ethics and morality do not rest in religion. US law is NOT founded on Christianity. Too bad old man. Get yourself a new paradigm.
Obama once said "rural voters cling to guns and religion", he meant goons like Hooka'bees, promoting prayers in schools, but pramoting NRA agendas in Washington, goon
Gun advocate are the most selfish misguided people. No citizen needs combat pistols or semi automatic weapons. Prayers and wishes aren't solving this problem. You are complicit if you don't support gun control.
No I'm not.
I completely agree.
EvolvedDNA, believing in God means you read and understand his truth. There's more Jesus' truth than you think you know. Reading the Bible is a lifetime commitment. Not sitting there reading it once through and assuming you know what is written then having a negative opinion about it.
God Bless you especially EvolvedDNA.
@Topher, I'll post this again, in case you missed it on the previous page. I've very curious to hear your response.
If you can be so quick to judge millions of christians, who are certain they are christians as not being christians, what makes you so confident that YOU are a christian? Do you have some kind of magic amulet that lights up confirming your belief?
Also, do you distance yourself from the old testament god who commanded acts of atrocity far worse than what this shooter did?
GodFreeNow
Hey, dude. I posted this on the other page, but I'll repost it here ...
"@Topher, If you can be so quick to judge millions of christians, who are certain they are christians as not being christians,"
... not judging anyone, just going by what the Bible says. Jesus said there will be many on Judgment Day who will wonder why they are being sent to Hell and proclaim their good works for Christ, but He will say 'depart from me you who practice lawlessness. I never knew you.' The Bible also says there is one path to God and few who find it.
"what makes you so confident that YOU are a christian? Do you have some kind of magic amulet that lights up confirming your belief?"
Nope. Just as the Bible says, when you repent and trust in the Savior, you are born again. That means you take on a new heart and new desires for God. This is the evidence of your salvation. I am not the same person I was once upon a time.
"Also, do you distance yourself from the old testament god who commanded acts of atrocity far worse than what this shooter did?"
No. The OT God and the NT God are the same. There are just different covenants. Those whom God smushed in the OT deserved what they got.
Yeah. I mean, how dare the Canaanites be descended from Canaan.
So all the babies he killed in the OT deserved what they got huh ? Right, oh delusional one.
Good one, bucky. How are you?
Must be damn near impossible to get to heaven considering every believer has their ideas on how to get in.
Damocles
It doesn't really matter how any of us "think" we should get into heaven. It only matters what God says on the matter.
@topher
You are right, I made a mistake. I should have said that because every believer has his or her own idea on how to get to heaven and that they are sure they meet the requirements they have laid out, it is extremely easy to get into heaven.
Mikey Huck just pulled his head out of the NRA's rear ...en.d.... Great thinking Huck or is it NRA $$$ talking ???
Mike Huckabee (on Fox News):
"We ask why there's violence in our school but we've systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools have become such a place of carnage? Because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability."
And in July:
"We don't have a crime problem, or a gun problem, or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem, and since we've ordered God out of our schools and communities; the military and public conversations... we really shouldn't act so surprised when all hell breaks loose."
These children were killed because they don't pray in school?
NONSENSE.
This is grandstanding pure and simple. You can't kill 6 adults and 20 little children with a kitchen knife. Guns enabled this death, not an imaginary God or a lack of Godliness.
Yes you can. It happens in China frequently.
Newsflash: This isn't China.
"Yes you can" what?
What happens in China frequently?
Mass stabbings.
@Libertarian,
are you asserting that people wielding kitchen knives regularly kill 6 adults and 20 children in Chinese elementary schools?
@RL,
you do of course realize that the real historical roots (not their historical varnish) of the 2nd amendment are religious?
First question: Yes, it happens very often, with elementary schools being targeted in particular.
Second question: Yes, you pointed it out already. It doesn't change my opinion.
Without some evidence I don't accept that there are frequent mass stabbings in Chinese elementary schools.
@Rational Libertarian –
I posted the following earlier today on page two, but the thread was abandoned. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
====
As you may remember, our philosophies regarding governmental infringement on personal liberties are kindred; however, why must "gun control" and Second Amendment discussions be all-or-nothing? If the Second Amendment's intent was personal protection (property included), what purpose does unrestricted access to weapons serve? Should a line-be-drawn, and where?...assault weapons...fully automatic weapons...RPGs...artillery? If the Second Amendment's intent was to protect the citizenry from the government, then these discussions are [nothing more than] rhetorical fantasy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
There have been several also in 2012. There were 22 people injured just last week in another incident.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/15/china-stabbing-school.html
Accept that biatch.
Really-O
I'd stop short at explosive weaponry, maybe over a pound of TNT.
Again: what happens in China stays in China.
@Rational Libertarian –
I assume you're being facetious. Again, I'm honestly interested in your thoughts with regard to my post.
Cheers
You can assume all you like bu it only makes an ass out of u and me.
Tom
I'm merely pointing out that knives are also very dangerous and that focusing on inanimate objects after a tragedy such as this is pointless. A very intelligent post makes this very clear.
cannonball200
I am continually astounded this horrible tragedy is being exploited for political gain. The first response from so many individuals rings very insincere when it is intertwined with a self-serving desire to push their political agenda forward on the shoulders of the poor children and adults killed in this senseless attack. Instead of focusing on the possible causes and the underlying issues of mental illness and societal factors that might have contributed to the tragedy, many seem to take the simple and easy (and sensationalist) way out. It is not acceptable to simply point fingers at inanimate objects (in this case guns) and ignore the more difficult and challenging issues (mental ilness and social / socital influences) that this awful event affords us the opportunity to address in the straightforward and unflinching manner that is so desparately needed. Why did this happen and what can we do to prevent a recurrence in the future should be the focus – not playing the sensationalist card of pointing at only the methods (guns) used to cary out the attacks.Would anyone find this tragedy any less horrific if the method was some other implement? Absolutely not. So let's all focus our energies where we have the opportunity to turn a horror into something better for society in the long term and not short-sighted political posturing.
@RL,
thank you for the CBC reference. I stand corrected regarding my statement that "You can't kill 6 adults and 20 little children with a kitchen knife."
Nevertheless, despite the fact that knives can be dangerous, the gun is a greater enabler of this kind of carnage than a knife.
@RL,
you quoted @cannonball... saying "we have the opportunity to turn a horror into something better for society in the long term and not short-sighted political posturing."
Isn't political posturing exactly what Huckabee is doing here?
Yes, it's exactly what he's doing.
And weren't the kids in China *injured* and not *killed*?? Again, RL, why stop at automatic weapons? Why not rocket launchers? Wouldn't that be the best way to avoid "tyranny"??
@mama
Do not think that I am making light of this tragedy when I say this, but are you saying that if the people had only been wounded, you would not be arguing for a weapons ban?
I believe what was being discussed, Damo, was the use of knives verses automatic guns in a given situation. But regardless, I know you can't keep criminals from guns easily, but it would probably become more difficult and much less occurrence if there were less of them around including licensed ones. I like to look at it like nuclear disarmament, but on a scale out at the "people" level. It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. has become a nation that worships the gun. Supposedly the mother of this killer became fascinated with guns and took this son to shooting practice with her. Now we may be learning that he had psychological problems. Statistics show the U.S. not to be in a good place for number of weapons owned and rate of gun murders per capita. I still don't see a justifiable reason for personal ownership of automatic weapons.
@damocles,
you appear to be a proponent of gun ownership.
What is your proposal to reduce gun violence?
@mama
Nuclear disarmament is a fine ideal if both sides are agreeing to it. I'm sure if you or anyone can get the criminals to give up their assault weapons then some law abiding citizens may give up theirs.
@gop
Heh, so because I am pro gun I have to give suggestions on how to curb violence? Kind of a loaded question, no pun intended.
I will attempt to answer and to me it's rather simple: educate your kids, responsibility, swift punishment, I am for stricter regulations on who can buy, but let's face it, you can't tell a crazy until he or she acts crazy.
@Damocles,
educate your kids, responsibility, swift punishment, I am for stricter regulations on who can buy, but let's face it, you can't tell a crazy until he or she acts crazy.
That's the crux of the question isn't it? There's no sanity test for purchasing a weapon. There's no requirement that a weapon is turned in after someone is diagnosed with a mental disorder. It's impossible.
@gop
You asked, I told. If we are going to ban things on the basis that someone is going to possibly misues them, well, there goes everything. Safer to err on the side of caution, right?
Somehow I knew you were going to say that, Damo, but I wrote it anyway. Because like nuclear disarmament, the paranoia is there unless you make the leap to improve the overall situation. Anyway, not a GOPer touched on what I've been wondering about with this case as well. We are often losing the battle in terms of the guns being accessed by family members, often with mental problems. In this case, nothing more can be done, but what kind of penalty do you think should have been levied against the mother had she not been killed (after the son killed the others as he did) for not understanding the danger she put others in?
sorry – that last reply was @damo.
@Damocles,
I do not believe it is healthy to change the const!tution frequently. The 2nd amendment is based on the myth of the militia as being superior to a standing army. We don't rely on militia. We have a standing army now.
It is an anachronism. It is not about the self-defence of individuals. It is about preventing the power of a government controlled army. How many times has the myth of the militia been disproven?
The Whiskey rebellion of 1794.
The War of 1812.
The Civil War 1861-1865.
We are irrevocably commited to the professional standing army. If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment as meaning that guardsmen are permitted to have their rifle at home and the higher powered stuff at the armory fine.
Ths permanent professional standing army effectively makes the intent of the 2nd amendment moot.
well Damo – we don' just hand out a commercial aircraft license to just anyone. Why is it so easy to get a license for an automatic weapon with so little background check in some places that can do just as much damage?
and sorry again, Damo, my last reply was in reply to your comment to GOP'er:
"If we are going to ban things on the basis that someone is going to possibly misues . ."
@mama
Depends on the circu-mstances. If she knowingly provided access to the weapons and if she knew her son was unstable, then yes, she would have deserved some very harsh punishment.
@GOP
The last thing I want to do is sound like an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist, but who protects you when the government sends the standing army after you? Do I think this scenario is going to happen? No. Do I think it's possible? Yes.
@mama
I agree that a law abiding citizen should have no problem with stricter rules on how to get a gun, the thought being that if your nose is clean, you should have no problems. When you start banning one thing, it is easy to keep banning, this is what I fear.
Thanks, Damo – I think I understand your position. I appreciate your frankness.
@Damocles,
"but who protects you when the government sends the standing army after you?"
No one. And no one can.
It is delusional to think that you can defend yourself against the government except by by using the law and the government can redefine the law. That's the problem. History tells us that over and over again.
Jeffersonian notion of: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” is non-existent. We live under the grotesquely named Patriot Act which has not been repealed and nor do I understand its provisions to have expired. We live in a country willing to suspend the most fundamental values of Const!tutional liberty like habeus corpus and probably cause. Having guns in your house does not change this.
The heritage of the 2nd amendment is clear.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
The Bill of Rights, 1789
Amendment II. 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.
It failed with the failure of the militia in 1812 and the United State's commitment to professional standing armies ever since.
Ooops – probable cause ... United States' etc.
@mama
I understand you and GOP's view as well. It's not an easy topic and it certainly has no easy answer, I just don't want the knee-jerk reaction of starting to ban a certain type of weapon because it could lead to all weapons being banned.
@GOP
Correct me if I'm wrong, but before any nation was changed by law in the context of government abuse, weapons were used to gain the attention of those that were in power. Yes I know this country adoringly gives up one freedom after another with nary a wimper, but I don't think that will be the case always.
Gosh and you know how much I like Madison in terms of church and state, but regarding 1812, didn't he keep on some incompetent general that caused much misery? I think I was reading something about that the other day.
@Damocles,
but I don't think that will be the case always.
And if the divide between the haves and the have-nots gets much worse that just might happen sooner than anyone thinks.
The second amendment needs to be revised. We are not about to disband the army, navy and air force any time soon. The notion of a militia is entirely anachronistic.
The whole situation is a gordian knot. Too many guns do indeed exist to serve the needs of criminals. I understand the self-defense argument but I am unaware of any reliable data to contrast the effectiveness of firearms in self-defense* versus deliberate and accidental firearm death.
The notion of ubiquitous conceal and carry as deterrent is absurd. We closed the chapter on the wild wild west a century ago. I'm not interested in banning sporting weapons.
* I do not consider the NRA as a reliable source here.
@mama k,
the war of 1812 was a catastrophic blunder by James Madison. He thought that with the British distracted by fighting Napoleon he could accomplish a land grab in Canada and trumped up excuses to go to war.
He was wrong. It wasn't just about bad generals. The American militia were generally incompetent compared with the British regulars they faced in Canada. It wasn't until the professionalism of the US troops improved (1814) under generals like Winfield-Scott that they were more effective. In the end, nothing was accomplished but death and destruction.
The same was essentially true of the militia during the revolution. It took French training and a combination of the French navy and the French army to win the revolution. Washington essentially lost EVERY battle he fought in the open field against a major British force. You could argue about Monmouth, but he did not achieve the strategic objective of preventing the British withdrawal to Sandy Hook.
@GOP
I agree that 1 person successfully defending themselves with a firearm is not a strong statistic, unless I happen to be that 1. 🙂
Like I said to mama, it's a tough topic, I just don't want to see the wrong choices made for the wrong reasons.
@Damocles,
regrettably, you and I can't solve it tonight. I firmly believe that *something* has to be done. I suspect that my preferences are too much for most, which largely makes my opinion moot.
The real question is what are the steps that people who support gun ownership are willing to take? "Do nothing" should not be the answer.
Yes, not a GOPer – I do remember reading something along the lines of what you're saying. It did seem mostly disastrous for him. I think I the thing I was reading saying something about one of his key generals – or maybe is was the most equivalent position then to the Secretary of Defense, but that this person was held over from the previous admin and had already been deemed incompetent.
@GOP
Hell I don't even own a gun, I like blades, but I do agree with a person's right to have a gun and I agree that they have the right to go to a gun range or a place they have made out in the middle of nowhere and rip off a few hundred rounds if they choose. I think a good first step would be to limit gun sales to actual gun stores, not Wal-Mart. Granted Wally World doesn't sell Uzis, but I don't think it's quite the place to sell rifles and shotguns.
@Damocles,
I wouldn't ban Walmart etc from selling firearms, though I do think they should be limited to purely sporting weapons such as hunting rifles, shotguns etc.
My most pragmatic solution is a ban on newly manufactured assult rifles – essentially anything designed as a primary-purposed military weapon.
Secondly, no firearm can be purchased without a nationally defined background check with a mandatory waiting/research period, and recording of ID and serial numbers – including any personal sale. Illegal transaction will occur, but anyone selling weapons without following a monitored process would be open to serious prosecution. Regretably, this requires a national database of felons and people unsuitable for owning firearms, but this data exists anyway.
Personally I would go further than this – but it wouldn't fly.
Looks like that check for 100k that the National Rifle Association sent to Mike the Huckster finally cleared. Look into Mikey's contract with Fox Fake News. No matter what happens, Mikey always shills for the gun industry. Never trust a pastor with a $2000 suit. Satan has a special place in hell for this buffoon.
A gun or any weapon doesn't kill people. The person using them to conduct unrighteousness, does. Tired of the media treating this tragedy for the gun issue. This horror is about wrong or unrighteous thinking coming to the fruition of unrighteous actions.
20 kids are dead and you STILL defend guns. You are friggin sick. And your time is coming to an end. By any means necessary.
So you'll enforce gun control by executing law abiding gun owners. Yep, somebody is friggin sick.
I like it "Never trust a pastor with a $2000 suit"
Chuckie, read my post. I'm not allowing a bandage to be put on the evil that transpired. It's what people can and will do with negative thinking (aka sin blinding them). For you to use the pain of the people who lost loved ones for your gun agenda is what is in question. The shooter could have used a hammer or any other method to kill. Are you going to ban hammers and other instruments too. Get real so you can see the bigger picture than the myopic one you are focused on. It's the issue of wrong thinking and believing no one understands your pain, therefore, the wrong way of processing ... that of give pain to others so they too are hurt like you.
God Bless you.
Edit that: Never trust a pastor OR a financial planner in a $2000 suit.
@+, I'm not in the "ban all guns" camp by any means; it's a complicated issue with big consequesnces however you cut it. But to claim that a gun is the same as a hammer is to stick your head in the sand and play dumb. Is a nuclear weapon the same as a hammer? Don't enter the conversation unless you are ready to debate things reasonably.