The recent Florida school shooting has once again re-activated the old buzz phrase concerning the need for a “national conversation about guns.” There are many second amendment, conservative folks on the right who would welcome a genuine dialogue on the subject, but it’s very difficult to engage in productive discourse with those who frequently engage in walk-outs, protests, riots, destruction of private and public property and general mayhem. To those of that disposition, a conversation is a one-way street. However, in the spirit of good faith optimism, I shall submit some reflections, all the while welcoming reasonable responses.
Raising the legal age for gun purchases to twenty-one has been submitted as a partial remedy. In general, the legal age to buy alcohol in the U.S. is twenty-one. Clearly, booze and guns in the hands of irresponsible youths is dangerous. We concede that point, but wait…this is a conversation, therefore, a counter proposal should be initiated. Let us return the voting age to twenty-one with the understanding that a vote by an impressionable youth who is not yet mentally or emotionally equipped to handle liquor or firearms can also be substantially dangerous. The 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to eighteen, was passed July 1, 1971. In large part it was due to the controversy about young men being drafted at eighteen to fight in Vietnam, but unable to vote until twenty-one. The debate had some merit, but today’s military is all voluntary coupled with the fact that contemporary eighteen year olds are not even close to what they were in 1971.
I often have asked young clerks if they take Alaskan money --- 90% will say no. I follow that up with, “Is Alaska in America?” A full 50% have no idea. They can’t make change without the computer, but not to worry, every seventh word is “like.” To be sure, there are noticeable exceptions, but the exception only proves the rule. And so, Nancy, in the spirit of good ol’ bi-partisan compromise, you give up those voters who still believe in Santa Claus and we agree to up the age of gun buyers. The Democratic caucus sure is silent.
Speaking of the word legal, shouldn’t our concern for gun owners’ legality be at least comparable to an apprehension for immigrants’ legal status? Why is a “legal status” more important for one group than another? Common sense dictates that an illegal alien with a prohibited gun is a multiple threat. If we are going to make gun ownership more difficult, it makes perfect sense to begin with those who pose the greatest danger. If an individual is willing to be illegal in one aspect, are we to assume that his conscience will prevent any other unlawful activity? God has an unusual perceptive on that: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) Once again, Nancy, we offer a compromise---every restriction on guns should be met with a correlating limitation on immigration. Yes, we do see the problem; your voter pool is diminishing.
It is reasonable to believe that 99.9% of so-called assault weapon owners have no intention of using them to go on the warpath anywhere in this country. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that these types of guns are viewed by their purchasers as defensive weapons - which is a more appropriate title. Liberals have a great deal of difficulty discerning the difference between "assault" and "defensive". When the U.S. arms rebels against an oppressive government, we do not supply them with single shot 22’s, but rather alleged "assault" rifles for their defense against a rogue regime.
There is a fitting analogy to be observed. One does not have to be a conspiracy buff to fear a government that seeks to regulate ever increasing aspects of our personal lives. Those who are nervous lack any understanding of history or human depravity. Henry Ward Beecher said it well when defining fear…”the soul’s signal for rallying.” How can we have a conversation about regulations that people are passionate about and avoid the same in the world of health care - for that is equally personal. When a shooter packs a gun into a school with the intent of harm, that is an insidious invasion. Is a government controlling our health care any less of a trespass?
The Left has consistently characterized President Trump as a Hitler which in reality ought to motivate them to encourage all Americans to arm themselves to the max. Would the Holocaust have been written in much less blood if the Jews and Christians were armed? How many genocides have been perpetuated in Africa against tribal people which had little ability of defense? These questions are relevant to anyone with the ability to see truth, but alas, as with the Gospel, common sense has in invisible enemy: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (II Corinthians 4:4).
A student was recently observed wearing a t-shirt with the following inscribed on the back:
Why do you allow so much violence in our schools?
A concerned student
Dear Concerned Student,
I’m not allowed in schools.
Shall we talk about that?