Training The Military In CCW

Recently there appeared an article on Fox News.com regarding Indiana’s Republican Governor Mike Pence using National Rifle Association trainers to train members of the Indiana National Guard on how to use concealed weapons. Pence directed the state's military bases and training centers to beef up security in response to recent terrorist attacks in Tennessee.

The Fox Report states:

“According to a survey by The Associated Press, Indiana is the only state to enlist the NRA's help in the training, which the gun-rights group says it will conduct free of charge for any guardsman who wants to carry a concealed handgun.

Although National Guard members traditionally have not been allowed to carry weapons while conducting most stateside duties, Pence is one of 14 governors who decided to arm them in the wake of a gunman's attacks last month on two U.S. military sites in Chattanooga that left four Marines dead.

Gun control advocates argue it's inappropriate for a state to involve a political lobbying organization in training members of the military, and even some National Guard officials from states that allow guardsmen to carry weapons question why a civilian organization is needed.

"This is a military problem to deal with, so we're going to deal with it with the military," said Lt. Col. Joel Lynch, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, which is handling the training of its Guard members itself.”

The Article goes on to state:

“Guy Relford, an NRA instructor who recently trained about 65 Indiana guardsmen at an armory in Franklin, said his "basic pistol" course delves into safety scenarios on when and when not to shoot.

Without training, the National Guard has "dramatically increased the possibility that someone could hurt themselves or others with a gun," Relford said.

The AP survey of the 14 states that have armed their National Guards shows that most states had members of the military or law enforcement conduct the training. Only Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma said they allow guardsmen to carry concealed weapons. At least seven others — including the largest state of California — allow Guard members to carry weapons in plain sight. Officials in Alabama declined to release information about their firearms rules for guardsmen, while the Texas National Guard wouldn't say if concealed handguns were allowed.

"The fact is, our folks are very comfortable in using weapons and using discernment in when they use those weapons, so having an outside agency involved is a little bit of a surprise," Capt. Will Martin, a spokesman for the California National Guard, said of Indiana's policy.

Eric Dietz, a professor at Purdue University who studies homeland security issues, said his research suggests causalities in some active shooter situations could be reduced if someone, such as a guardsman, has a concealed handgun.

Although more known for its role as an advocacy group, the NRA also frequently conducts handgun training programs for civilians. Relford says most Guard members don't get pistol training from the military, and those who do are taught using the standard 9mm. Pence's policy applies to a vast array of firearms ranging from a .22-caliber up to a .357 Magnum.

There are also legal and philosophical considerations because the military's overarching focus is on threats abroad, not at home, which is the traditional role of law enforcement.

Allowing different states to adopt different training methods also goes against the grain of military orthodoxy.

"You don't want to have the Indiana National Guardsmen trained a certain way that may be different from Illinois or Kentucky. There does have to be a standard across the board," said David Harris, a former adjutant general of the Illinois National Guard and now a Republican legislator, who supports the idea of arming guardsmen.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence criticized Pence for recruiting the NRA, suggesting the organization is "first and foremost" a "lobbying organization."

I wanted to present as much of the article as I have to set the context for what I am going so say.

There may be some validity to Lt. Col. Joel Lynch’s statement stating that the military should train these Guard Men and women on a national basis. But this only applies to how to shoot and basic handgun safety. Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) laws and procedures are Complicated and different in every state.

For a ranking of the 50 states on their laws, regulations, procedures on concealed carry and the purchase of firearms click here.

In most cases soldiers, sailor, and airmen do not receive adequate handgun training. Even Marines are not very well trained in the use of their 9mm Beretta M9. My nephew, a former Marine, received a mere 4 hours of training in the use of the M9. Most other members of the military receive far less or no training in the use of a handgun. The primary weapon of soldiers is the M-16 or MP-4 rifle not a handgun. The military does not waste time or ammunition on handgun training. This does not apply to military members of security forces (such as embassy and base guards), Special Forces, and criminal investigators such as Army CID.

The photo shown above is of the 9mm Beretta M9 the official side arm of the United States Military. With its 5 inch barrel, all metal construction, and weighing 34 ounces unloaded it is not a preferred concealed carry handgun

Civilians get more training in the use of handgun safety than the military. As an example my daughter and I recently participated in a handgun safety course. It was 8 hours long and covered basic firearm safety, shooting, and maintenance. In order to obtain a CCW permit in most states the applicant is required to complete not only a handgun safety class, but also a class on laws and regulations pertaining to the concealed carry and use of that firearm. These classes generally include the use of the firearm, types of handguns to carry, the proper holsters to use (inside the waistband or outside the waistband), proper concealment, when to shoot, and what to do after you shoot. The latter is most important as when the police arrive they do not know who the bad guy is and might shoot anyone holding a gun.

For years the NRA has been educating and training adults and children in the proper use and storage of firearms. They also have comprehensive classes to train the firearm trainers. The NRA does many things for its over 4 million members besides firearm training. Yes they have a lobbying are (the Institute for Legislative Action – NRA-ILA), but they also offer education, on-line training, publications, and insurance. They are not, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence states; “a lobbying group.” That’s what the Brady Campaign is along with numerous other left-wing gun-grabbing organizations.

Recently Detroit Police Chief James Craig called for responsible, law-abiding citizens of Detroit to carry weapons in the city’s high crime urban areas. In a city plagued by chronic unemployment and crime and guarded by a dwindling police force, residents of Detroit are increasingly taking protection of themselves, their families and property into their own hands. Those who do so responsibly have the blessing and backing of Detroit Police Chief James Craig.

“When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns,” Craig said recently

In a recent interview on Fox News Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County in neighboring Wisconsin called for more CCW permit holders in support of his deputies. He believes that these responsible, moral, and law-abiding citizens cannot only help reduce crime but they can have his deputies back in light of recent budget cuts. In January 2013, Sheriff Clarke was featured on a series of public radio ads that said citizens could no longer rely on the police for timely protection and should arm themselves. Later that month Clarke appeared on the CNN program Piers Morgan, with Milwaukee Mayor and gun-control advocate Tom Barrett, who attacked the notion that citizens could no longer rely on calling 9-1-1. The appearance sent David Clarke into the national spotlight. I have heard this sentiment from other law enforcement officers.

Since 2002 Sheriff Clarke (a Democrat) has received on average 76.25% of the votes for his office. He receives phenomenal support from his community. Other police chiefs and sheriffs across the nation have taken a stand on concealed carry weapons as Chief Craig and Sheriff Clarke. They realize that a responsibly armed citizenry helps reduce crime. As CCW permits go up crime goes down. Criminals are fearful and wary of an armed citizenry. They don’t know who carries a firearm and who does not. This is a proven fact that the left-wing mainstream media and gun-grabbers either ignore or refuse to acknowledge. All they care about is their personal agendas.

You can take each example of mass shootings in the United States and ask the question “what would be different had a responsible gun owner with a CCW permit had been there?” This applies to Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, and Memphis. According to the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Units mass shootings have two things in common, 1 of course is a firearm, and 2 the profile of the shooter. The second being far more important and dangerous that the first. No matter what the anti-gun media like Mother Jones, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other left-wing publications say guns are not the reason for mass shootings. Yes, they may be a tool like a knife or a bomb, but it’s the profile of the person behind that gun that is the problem — just like the terrorist getting on the plane. The media ignores the illegal immigrants that have committed many crimes and are still walking the streets of cities like San Francisco and instead take up the clarion call for more gun control. Keep in mind that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez did not possess a legally obtained firearm but one stolen from an irresponsible federal officer. According to Beitbart.com 30% of the homicides in the United States are committed by illegal aliens.

According to Breitbart:

“The US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Programs publishes an annual report on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; a report that includes data on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated each state prison system and each county jail. It takes some prodigious digging to find the data, but it is there.

But our mainstream media, our self-described guardians of the First Amendment, consciously avoids the effort and declines to put a public spotlight on the problem or demand public scrutiny and public accountability. Why?

The answer is that public debate on the problem of illegal alien crime does not serve the progressive political agenda. The issue is swept under the rug and anyone who raises it is called a racist.

This is media malpractice of historic proportions, and publishers and editors are the unindicted coconspirators in those 7,085 murders.”

We are a nation with a diverse population of over 321 million, with well over 100 million households with legal gun ownership, of somewhere between 270 – 310 million legal firearms of all types.

There’s no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.

There are estimates, however. According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents — far ahead of Yemen, which comes in second with about 55 firearms for every 100 people, or Switzerland, which is third with 46 guns for every 100 people.

There are certain types of firearms that do require registration in the United States: those subject to the National Firearms Act, including machine guns, shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches, and silencers.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which handles that registration, there were more than 3.1 million National Firearms Act-registered weapons in the U.S. as of March 2012. That includes more than 488,000 machine guns and more than 2 million “destructive devices” such as grenades, which are also classified under the law.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau 64.9% of the population own their homes, (the highest in the world) — that’s 208.3 million people. According to a report by the Pew Research Organization an average of 33.5% of households report having a firearm in the house. Using these numbers it would appear there are 70 million households with one or more firearms in the homes.

It is very difficult to obtain accurate figures when it comes to firearm ownership. People will answer many questions regarding politics and life style, but are very reluctant to talk about their gun ownership. They just want to keep that information private as they don’t know how it will be used. I know that I would not answer the questions whether I owned a firearm or not. It’s just not anyone’s business.

With that the number growing it’s a wonder there aren’t much more gun-related homicides. The answer is simple. The vast majority of legal gun owning people are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

This debate will go on forever as long as the gun control lobby refuses to see or use the facts pertaining to gun ownership and gun crimes. They will report on an emotional basis using the latest gun-related tragedy to support their agenda. Mike Pence has taken the correct track to train his National Guard in the use and carry of a concealed weapon. This training must be comprehensive and cover all aspects of concealed carry including the carrier’s responsibilities, the laws of that particular state, the possibility of civil liability (something there will always be), insurance, and accurate close-range shooting and the protection of innocent bystanders. This is not what the military does, they train to shoot a rifle accurately. Not even law enforcement does this much training.

A Virtuous Government

“[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” — Benjamin Rush, On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic — 1806.

Super Bowl advertisers paid as much as $4 million for 30 seconds of time in hopes of making a lasting impression. And they tried every gimmick in the book to do it. But one of the ads everyone is still talking about is the Dodge Ram Trucks ad, featuring images of American farmers set to a speech written and delivered by a giant of radio, Paul Harvey. It was called “God Made A Farmer.” Viewers so young that they might not even remember Paul Harvey were moved to tears by the commercial. Because amid all the CGI effects, vulgar jokes and sexual innuendo, what proved the most memorable was the power of Paul Harvey’s words and his unique, heartfelt delivery. By the way, if you’d like to hear the full speech, you can find it by clicking here. Paul Harvey made it in 1978 — 35 years ago.

This was a rare time where you would see God 11 times in 2 minute and 36 second TV Commercial. While watch the Super Bowl with a group of rowdy friends who mocked most of the commercials when the Dodge Ram Truck commercial began and the voice of Paul Harvey boomed out of the TV set the rowdy bunch of football fans fell silent. This was the few times in 15 years of our traditional Super Bowl party this has ever occurred. The other times usually were during the Budweiser commercials portraying their famous Clydesdale horses.

Another event over the weekend was the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle by a deranged veteran who was suffering from PTSD at a gun range. Eddie Ray Routh, a former Marine and Iraq veteran said: “He "traded his soul for a new truck." Why Kyle was working with Routh at a gun range may be questionable, but evidently the psychiatrist who was treating Routh cleared him for such activities. What made this event more horrific was a Tweet attributed to former Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul tweeted: “Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense.”

Yesterday, according to a report in the Blaze, on his nationally syndicated radio show Glen Beck took Dr. Paul to task for his ill-advised tweet. The Blaze report states:

“Rather than coming from the lips (or keyboard, in this case) of a seasoned elder statesman, Beck said that Paul’s tweet sounded like something that would come from radical groups like Code Pink or Westboro Baptist Church, calling the social media statement “beneath” the former representative. The host said that one of the main problems that abounds in today’s society is a failure for individuals to treat one another decently and he even wondered if Paul regrets his “serious, serious error in judgment.

Acknowledging that some would potentially point the finger at him as someone who has fallen prey to uttering unfavorable statements in the past, Beck admitted that “we’ve all said things that we shouldn’t have said,” but that people should learn and grow from these experiences. And while he stands fervently against Paul’s statements, the host affirmed that he is a big believer in the First Amendment.

“I find Ron Paul’s speech ugly and offensive, but I defend his right to say it and I would not violate it or ask anyone else to violate it by having him silent,” Beck proclaimed “More speech — not less speech — but it requires all of us in responsible ways to respond because that is the right that so many like Chris Kyle fought for.”

The host also noted that for those wondering why he has never — and could never — support Paul, this example provides both explanation and corroboration.

“This should finally answer your question,” Beck said.”

On one hand we have a car company willing to use the words of a conservative radio host to promote it’s truck and the American Farmer and on the other hand we have a former Libertarian congressman using social media to make a comment beneath his dignity and doing harm to his reputation.

Yes we have free speech, but we also have responsibilities in exercising that right. Why post a disparaging comment about a recently murdered decorated SEAL while his family and friends are grieving his death. To me this is not only in poor taste it is a cruel exercise of the First Amendment. Dr. Paul may think this and discuss it with his followers, but why put such a comment on public social media for millions of people to read. Why cause more pain to his family. As a medical doctor Ron Paul should have known better. On the political side of the issue Dr. Paul’s comment will no doubt haunt his son, Rand Paul, in a future run for the presidency.

This is the problem with today’s social media. Politicians, celebrities, and just everyday folks are able to post ill-advised, nasty, vicious, and false statements on Facebook and Twitter without giving thought to what they are saying. These comments do harm to others and themselves. Where has virtue and honor gone?

A nation without virtue and honor is a nation without a future. Today the United States finds itself in a quagmire of ever-increasing self-doubt and foreboding. Chief among the factors that have brought America to this point has been the abandonment of a sense of what is right, just and true as it relates to the duty imposed by conscience. Virtue and honor is being abandoned and replaced by duplicity, avarice, self-aggrandizement, cowardice, and an unbridled lust for power and notoriety.

These characteristics are symptomatic of the bulk of the American governing class that has increasingly adopted, as their sacrosanct tenet, the concept that the end justifies the means. In their position atop the societal pyramid they have been devastatingly influential in undermining the morality and integrity of the citizenry. As Herbert Hoover once observed: "When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned."

As the greatest fear of the founding fathers comes to pass — an overwhelmingly powerful central government — the base nature of the human race comes increasingly to the fore. This evolutionary process, while underway for some time, has thoroughly permeated society as the nation is now reaching the tipping point.

Whether in the various state capitols or the once hallowed halls of Congress or the now tarnished grandeur of the White House, the acquisition and retention of political power by any means necessary, and the attendant access to ever larger sums of money, either borrowed, created out of whole cloth or coerced from the taxpayers, has become firmly entrenched in the nation's political psyche. Party identity notwithstanding, in order to achieve this end, nothing is beyond the pale — be it fraud, corruption, outright lies, or immorality.

No one person on the American landscape today more epitomizes this descent into dishonor than Barack Obama. His earliest days in politics were marked with unethical and oftentimes dishonest tactics in eliminating his opposition. He has revealed an untroubled willingness to prevaricate and make up so-called facts to suit his personal agenda. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy and a man whose word is meaningless. His narcissism knows no bounds as he oversees the premeditated decline of the United States concurrent with seeking to transform the nation into his vision of a socialist state. All the while exploiting his skin color as he calculatingly divides Americans into groups which he coldly and with forethought pits against each other.

The recent re-election campaign of Barack Obama encapsulated all these traits into the strategy employed as he set out to not only personally destroy his opposition by innuendo and falsehoods but to hoodwink the American voter. Unfortunately, the voters have become receptive to these tactics as they have been conditioned over the past forty years by an education establishment — dominated by greed, self-absorption and fealty to statist ideology — to believe that government, as controlled by the American left, is the source of wealth and salvation. Adding to this indoctrination, the entertainment industry, whose primary concern is an unfettered lifestyle, has slowly but surely convinced a near majority of the people that there are no moral absolutes. Honor and virtue are not words in their vocabulary.

The mainstream media, also concerned with an unfettered lifestyle but more importantly with access to the politically powerful, have chosen sides and become an extension of the state propaganda machinery as well as pawns in the hands of Barack Obama and the Democrats. Many in the media, also greatly influenced by the education and entertainment establishment, have left any semblance of honor at the doorway of cronyism as they safeguard their standard of living.

Far too many in the corporate and financial sphere have cast their principles aside as they too are increasingly operating their enterprises with the end justifies the means mindset. Further, as much of the free market is effectively under the thumb of government bureaucrats and politicians, many are convinced that in order to survive and prosper they must "play the game" with Washington D.C. and financially support those who have amassed the power to destroy them. Others have willing prostituted themselves and openly become crony capitalists eerily reminiscent of the relationship between industry and the government in fascist Italy and Germany.

This debasement of honor has extended its tentacles into many religious institutions who are now preaching the gospel of big government, abortion, euthanasia, and the toleration of any lifestyle. They are doing so in order to maintain some semblance of a congregation and the income derived from the same as well as groveling before the almighty monolith on the shores of the Potomac River.

The ultimate bulwark of honor and independence is supposed to be the Judiciary. Yet it has become what Thomas Jefferson feared: "an irresponsible body". Far too many judges have increasingly allowed their personal biases and ideological beliefs to dominate their decision making process as they usurp legislative power. They have allowed themselves to be swallowed into the vortex of self-aggrandizement and faux omnipotence rather than adhere to the Constitution and act as men and women imbued with humility, virture, and honor.

After the defeat in the 2012 presidential election, the primary and only topic of conversation among the conservatives and the Republican Party establishment is how to regain the White House and the Senate in future elections. These discussions invariably center on tactics and campaign strategy to counter the tactics and campaign strategy of the Democrats. To many principles are not part of the conversation. They want to win!

But all the grand plans to win elections cannot reverse the course the United States is presently on; only by being brutally honest with the American people and offering viable political/economic alternatives as well as emphasizing the overarching importance of honor can the nation be potentially rescued. That, first and foremost, requires honorable men and women to step forward and suffer the slings and arrows certain to come their way. Unless and until that happens all else is meaningless and America will continue to careen down it's self-destructive path.

As George Washington stated in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.”

I leave you with the words of William Henry Harrison, words he spoke during his inaugural address in 1841:

“Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in the Executive branch. The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual would terminate in virtual monarchy. The tendencies of governments in their decline is to monarchy. The spirit of faction in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have entrusted power."

The Wishful Thinking of the Anti-Gun Crowd

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.” — Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia — 1776

Most people not raised in the presence of firearms demonstrate possess a fear of guns and are uncomfortable in their presence. In all my years of discussing the ownership of firearms with people (mostly liberals) I have found this to be the case.

As a teenager I owned my first gun, a .22 caliber bolt action Remington rifle. I used the rifle for target and varmint shooting. I was pretty good with targets, but did not have that much luck with the varmints. I soon graduated to a 12 gauge shotgun for hunting and was instructed in its use by neighbor, a WWII navy veteran. Eventually I was trained in the use of .306 caliber repeating rifle, revolvers, and semi-automatic hand guns. I learned the power of the gun and the responsibility gun ownership placed on the owner. I was never afraid to handle a firearm.

On the other hand I know and have known numerous people who do not own a firearm of any class and have never handled one. They have an unnatural fear of firearms as my father did of driving an automobile until he moved to California and had no choice but to learn to drive and purchased his first vehicle. Their first argument against the ownership of a firearm is; “why do we need a gun for home protection, that’s what the police are for.” Most of these folks believe guns should be limited to the military and law enforcement.

In a conversation with a deputy sheriff of the county I live in a few years ago at a neighborhood watch meeting about the ownership of a firearm for personal defense here is what he had to say; “the police will rarely, if not never, be able to get to your home in time to prevent a crime. I cannot tell you to go out and buy a gun to protect your home and family, but I have several personal defense guns in my house.” This law enforcement officer was right on target. By the time the police arrive the damage is already done and they become investigators not crime stoppers.

I have two German shepherds at home and a sign on the gate to my side yard stating “Beware of Dog” with a picture of a mean German shepherd. Sometimes I wonder it a sign in front lawn had a picture of a gun with the words “This is a gun zone.” While the dogs a very good and give ample and loud warnings of people at the door I don’t know if they could handle an intruder with malevolent intent.

To the anti-gun crowd, including educators, guns are evil most of them seem to feel. The guns of the police they'd summon to their aid are bad too. The make believe guns boys play cowboy with are bad too, even the gun a second grader might pencil in when drawing a picture of an "army man" is evil. It's a key tenet of their wishful thinking.

And a very strange brand of wishful thinking it is. Instead of hoping for something to come their way, they're wishing for nothing to happen. Its symbol might be a monkey with it hands over its eyes because it's principal doctrine is that if you can't see any evil, refuse to see any evil, then it doesn't exist. Of course it's only a variation of the old notion that if you don't look a lion in the eye he won't charge. But it's what these people believe. Which is why schools run by similar believers once prohibited any discussion of 9/11, any videotapes, photographs or indeed any reference to it at all. Again if you don't see evil or don't learn about it, talk it out, try to learn the lessons it teaches you, then it doesn't exist, and won't have any power over you.

Without any evidence at all that they're right, indeed in the face of any number of horrible examples proving them wrong, they cling to this belief. Because on some level they believe they want to convince themselves that they're "better than that", better than Virginia Tech, better than Columbine, better than those awful images of people jumping from the twin towers. That they're different somehow — they’re special.

But educators should know something about history. This is an old story and has its roots in a tragedy every bit as compelling as Sandy Hook School. It is the story of Lindisfarne.

An island connected to northern England's coast by a tidal causeway. A holy place, in fact its name today is Holy Island and 1219 years ago (793) it was Christendom's most prominent experiment with what we today would call a Gun Free School Zone. But what happened there should have proved for all time that covering one's eyes, pretending that demons don't exist, that you're somehow "better than that", is worse than futile. Criminally worse.

Lindisfarne was a monastery, renowned for its non-violence, dedicated to learning, to the idea that in the tumult of the early Middle Ages, man could, should be, was "better than that." Gloriously "better than that." And for a while people believed along with them in this "right message" and endowed Lindisfarne with riches, sang its praises in ten thousand churches.

Its ruins today are still a beacon atop a spire of high rock, surmounted by sheer stone walls, far above the everyday concerns of this world.

But they are ruins because one dark in the eighth century Lindisfarne's rock and walls were scaled by Vikings holding their swords in their mouths. Demons out of the northern seas who chased the unarmed monks from room to room in the monastery, butchering them for sport, sacking their golden altar and trampling their precious books underfoot. An event which shook Christendom to its core.

Why did it happen? Quite simply because the killers were drawn by the defenselessness of the place, by Lindisfarne's "right message", by the fact that Lindisfarne abjured violence and trusted as school administrators trust today, in never looking the lion in the eye. Above all by the fact that Lindisfarne would not suffer the presence of armed men who might defend it.

Today most of us don't even remember that there once was such a place. Even though we keep repeating the same mistake it made. We don't remember what we should have learned then; that weakness will, sooner or later, summon horror as Adam Lanza was summoned to Sandy Hook School.

Killers always look for targets of easy access and no apparent means of defense. This tactic goes back hundreds of years. Adam Lanza chose the one target where he had the best chance of not encountering armed citizens, a gun-free school zone. Just as the Vikings didn't choose to assault one of the many fortified castles with armed men elsewhere on the coast but instead chose Lindisfarne. Just as Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold didn't choose a gun show to assault, a rodeo, a police station but instead chose Columbine.

I'm not certain what the solution is. No one wants schools to become armed camps with sandbagged revetments, passwords and barbed wire. Besides the evil one is a liar painted with many tongues and so the monsters who wish to kill children often adopt other techniques. Walter Seifert in Cologne Germany constructed a flame thrower he put to use through an elementary school's windows burning to death eight students, two teachers and horribly maiming many others. You have the three men who buried an entire school bus load of children in California. You have poisoners, knife wielding maniacs, stranglers, bombers, kidnappers and pedophile killers. And Timothy McVeigh used a rented Ryder truck and fertilizer to take 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. Should we ban Ryder trucks and fertilizer?

Instead it strikes me that any solution has to be rooted in natural affinity. The relationship of parent to child, neighbor to neighbor, grandparent to grandchild. Not in the fatuous belief that stone hearted killers will obey the resolutions of school boards, the acts of Congress or indeed do anything but laugh at any amount of wishful thinking.

Considering this point one might recall that at Columbine there were no such bonds which could gather and stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Nor was one considered necessary. Instead there were only rules grounded in a lot of wishful thinking — rules which Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold ignored. So despite a surplus of bravery among individual teachers and students and the presence of an armed sheriff's deputy on duty, who heard the first shots and didn't run towards them as he would have if they were his children, 13 people died.

And there was the school principal clueless about the murderers, who couldn't recall Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold student walking the halls in black trench coats in the days prior to the killings and threatening other students. We can believe his testimony or not but one thing we know for sure is that he wasn't looking for any lions to stare down. Finally there were the despicable parents of Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold who ignored or were oblivious to the collection of weapons and their bizarre behavior. Mothers and fathers in authority over their children who simply wished nothing bad would happen.

And so the concept of a gun free school zone established by authority turned out to be as much of a joke at Columbine as it was the other day in Newtown, Connecticut or at the Century 16 Multiplex movie theater in Aurora, Colorado where 12 were killed and 58 injured — the only theater of 7 in the area that was a gun free zone. This is the same idea that was shown to be a farce at Lindisfarne 1219 years ago.

Now I understand that public education today is a determinedly feminine institution. But they have tremendous leeway under the law and so one thing school administrators and teachers might consider doing is admit the fact that they have no more idea on how to physically defend children than they do about how to build a space shuttle with their second grade paper doll scissors. But among the parents of their pupils are many men who do have that experience and training. There are former or current police officers, soldiers and Marines. There are people who've been shot at and who've shot. People who have had to winkle armed men out of a closed room and take them down — men who will deter evil by their presence.

So for once why can't some hapless school administrator call them in? Ask them what they would do to keep these children safe and then heed what they say. Perhaps take note of what the Harrold Independent School District, in Texas does. It encourages teachers to concealed bring guns to work after they are trained and certified in their use.

In the City of Man people want there to be a reason for everything. People should have a logical reason for any significant thing they do. Life should make sense. Humans so strongly feel the desire for ratiocination to triumph over chaos and that Charles Williams once remarked that “Hell is (the) indefinite.” No matter how bad a tragedy occurs, we try to find a reason or a purpose behind it.

People reach for the easy explanation first. If Lanza didn’t have a gun then he never could have killed innocent children. Let’s immediately ban the guns. We could do a better job of securing the grounds of our schools. Let’s make every place that has children a gun-free zone. The world would be a better place if something that simplistic could succeed.

Yet making murder weapons illegal does very little to deter murderers. Some argue that it makes them even bolder and more sadistic. Adam Lanza, Brenda Spencer, Seung-Hui Cho and the Columbine High School shooters all had the added advantage of no armed resistance as they went on their insane rampages. Cho succeeded in buying handguns despite his diagnosed mental health problems because he simply lied on the background check.

We can’t stop people from getting anything they strongly or desperately want. These things could be guns, drugs, or even the coerced services of child prostitutes. Criminals will always find a way to provide it for a price. We can’t prevent Adam Lanza from getting a weapon even if Dick’s Sporting Goods follows Federal law to the letter and turns down Mr. Lanza’s legal tender 72 hours before he commits his atrocities using another set of guns. We are not going to end child pornography or sexual exploitation, win the War on Drugs or prevent the next mass shooting by focusing on any of these things.

We are going to have to realize that society rife with single-parent families, a tendency to completely desensitize people to violence and understate the sacred value of life, and where people think “I don’t like Mondays” is actually a funny piece of social commentary. It is not a safe place to raise our children.

The anti-gun crowds of educators, intellectuals, and politicians all have agenda-driven arguments for their distain of firearms. Because they do not recognize the existence of evil, due to their secular philosophies, they believe guns are the root cause of the violence in our society. In fact it has been proven that as gun ownership increases crimes against law abiding citizens decreases. (See John Lott’s 2010 book More Guns, Less Crime.) In fact 1927, according to the FBI, had the largest number of mass shootings in the history of the nation.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I heard a radio interview with Mr. Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott said. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.

In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds

We live in an age of moral relativism that, having no foundation on which to stand, is rapidly descending into nihilism — the absence of morality or any justification for it. I'm going to leave the shooter's intentions alone for the time, as I'm sure those will be discussed at length for weeks.

I'm talking about nihilism not just in the shooter, but in the broader culture that attempts to understand these horrific events without a moral reference point. In the aftermath, we attempt to get more and more legalistic, bureaucratic, and technocratic to solve problems that can't be legislated away.

These events are products of sick, evil people in an increasingly sick culture that has no stomach for "outdated" concepts like absolute right and wrong. We believe if we could just pass enough well-worded laws, we could eliminate this behavior from society. We treat these tragedies as outputs, thinking that we can just tinker with the inputs enough to get our desired results. This is the basic believe of the progressive masterminds.

For God's sake, the bodies were still warm and we were already talking about piles upon piles of statistics, as if the problem of violent gun crime could be solved mathematically with some study or Congressional inquiry. I'm afraid that, absent the presence of morality in our discussions of these murders, we have no tools to solve the underlying problems except legalism and policy making by the intellectual masterminds. People will keep fixating on the problems with guns because we've become woefully inadequate at talking about problems inherent in humanity.

It always amuses me in a pitying way when I hear people retreat even further into nihilism after an event like this by making that old appeal to the "Argument of Evil" which asks, "If there truly is a good god, why does he allow such evil deeds?" As if the very presence of evil invalidates the possibility or under-pinning for good!

Forgive my frustration, but what right do we have to even speak about evil in our society? We are so immersed in violence, greed, sex, instant gratification, and materialism that we've lost all sense of what evil even looks like. To know evil, you must first know good. And while we work ourselves into a righteous huff over "evil" for 2% of the year when these disgusting acts occur, for the other 98% we desperately try to rebel against all forms of conventional morality - that cramps our style, doesn't it?

A child one minute before passing through the birth canal can have a pair of surgical scissors put through his or her brain without society batting an eye. A fully formed, breathing, crying, desperate, helpless baby who is the result of a botched abortion has no entitlement to life in parts of this "enlightened" Western world. And we talk about "evil"?

Government officials pass guns to cartels to slaughter civilians, and we get to talk about "evil"?

It is all so sad. But the bullet ridden bodies of those little angels and angelic teachers in Newtown should show us that wishful thinking won't work, has never worked and will never work. If it did, we'd only have to wish those children back.

It Didn’t Take Obama Long

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They have exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, by worshipping and serving created things, rather than the Creator.” — St. Paul, Romans 1:21, 25 (CEV).

On Friday in Newtown, Connecticut at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, more than two dozen, mostly children, were gunned down in an act of evil.

Children cry out for their mommy and their daddy. Young men on the battlefield, as death comes over them, do the same. It is a natural instinct at life’s end for the young. Just the thought of the children crying out for their moms and dads as they died overwhelms the senses of those of us far removed from the tragedy. It is an instinct, though, that we should confront.

Instead, two days removed from the horror of Friday, we are beginning again the debate and confrontations about gun control. It is a debate probably worth having and, whether we want to or not, we will have it. Much, if any, of what will be proposed would not have stopped the massacre.

It only took Obama a mere sixty hours to bring his entourage of black GM SUVs with flashing red and blue lights and a myriad of armed secret service agents, staff members, and teleprompters to Newtown for national televised address where he could bathe in the light of the tragedy.

President Barack Obama used the Sunday evening memorial service for the murdered kindergartners and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School to launch a partisan campaign that could expand government intrusion into parenting and gun control.

“The job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors and the help of a nation,” Obama said at the vigil, which was held only a short distance from Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“We will have to change. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief then surely we have an obligation to try.”

It is not clear if Obama actually will develop a national anti-violence crusade that would reshape families’ ability to raise their children. He may simply be using the Sandy Hook shooting to paint Democrats as defenders of the nation’s children from the GOP-backed gun industry.

But Obama promised imminent action via Democratic-affiliated lobbies, such as the mental-health sector and the teachers’ unions.

“In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this,” he declared.

Through his 18-minute speech, Obama’s language promised a partisan and divisive project.

For example, he suggested the voters’ only choices are either to do nothing, or to follow his yet-to-be-described plan to combat gun violence in schools and street corners throughout the U.S.

I recall his emotional tearful speech at the University of Arizona Memorial service for the victims of the shooting at the Tucson shopping center where 6 people, including a 9-year old girl were murdered, and 12 were wounded including a U.S. Congresswoman. In this speech he blamed our uncivil society and the ranker of his political opponents, especially conservative talk radio. At the time he called for a more “civil society” with tolerance towards those with whom you do not agree. Yet, in 2012, he and his minions ran one of the most uncivil, divisive political campaigns in the history of the country. What hypocrisy utters forth from this man’s mouth.

Now as Rahm Emanuel his close advisor and Mayor of Chicago, one of, if not the most, the most gun violent city in the United States where gangs rule the streets, says; “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Obama, tutored on the writings Saul Alinsky, is taking Emanuel’s advice to the nines. It should be noted that Obama made no such speech after the shootings at the Aurora, Colorado theater complex because he did not want to broach the subject of gun control during the presidential campaign.

“We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm?” he added. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Before the bodies of murdered children had been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday, Barack Obama was, shamefully, stacking up the coffins of innocent kindergartners as a platform for his disarmament agenda, which he and his socialist cadres will conceal behind a thin façade of "concern for public safety."

Just one paragraph into his brief remarks, on Friday, about the murders in Newtown, Obama tearfully exclaimed:

"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." (Emphasis added)

New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler was less discreet in his insistence that Obama use the deaths of these children to advance the Left's gun prohibition agenda: "I think we will be there if the president exploits it." Sen. Charles Schumer added, "I think we could be at a tipping point where we might get something done."

Within hours of the deaths, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised, "I'm going to introduce in the Senate — and the same bill will be introduced in the House — a bill to get weapons of war off the streets." That should solve the problem. What about commando knives and bayonets?

At the Sunday evening vigil in Newtown, Obama again politicized the attack, framing his remarks around his gun-prohibition agenda. He asked rhetorically:

"Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? If we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. And we will have to change. What choice do we have? Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" (Emphasis added)

For the record, Connecticut already has banned "assault weapons," and the Newtown school was already a "gun-free zone," but that didn't prevent the murders of these precious children and six adults.

Of course Obama’s rhetoric ignored many measures that could reduce gun violence without further increasing government’s role.

At the federal level, such modest reforms could include funding for the institutionalization of disturbed people, or for training teachers who choose to carry a weapon to work. The federal government also has some authority to restrict the sale of high-capacity bullet magazines and body armor, as well as the ability to boost the financial rewards (through the tax code) for parents who stay married.

State and local government are also free to adopt similar measures.

In Texas, for example, at least one school district — Harrold Independent School District — encourages teachers to bring guns to work.

Some states, including Connecticut, have experimented with stringent control on guns, partly because many influential university-trained professionals abhor guns being sold to poor Americans. But Connecticut’s stringent anti-gun laws did not stop the murders at Sandy Hook

Any honest American should be deeply offended by politicians who are so calloused that they would use the deaths of innocents as political fodder for their agenda.

Could Obama not exercise the most basic decency and allow time for genuine grief to pass before exploiting this incident? Obviously not, according to the first chapter in his political playbook: "Never let a crisis go to waste."

It is no small irony that the political party that has made killing children prior to birth a pillar of their platform expresses such indignation when a sociopath places so little value on life that he murders children. Of course, it's easier to kill children who are faceless — and I am certain that in the eyes of the sociopathic killer in Newtown, his victims also had no faces.

"Obama has asserted erroneously, “The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control, but it doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.” Endeavoring to close that gap every time there is tragic mass murder where the assailant used a gun Democrats offer the disingenuous rationale that violence is a "gun problem" rather than a cultural problem. Of course it's easier to blame guns than culture, and that serves the Left's political agenda.

After years of arguing that Democrats should be willing to bear the political costs — lost votes in the South, in particular — of gun control measures, advocates Saturday began cautiously to make a different case. Gun control leaders and other progressive figures told BuzzFeed that, whether or not Democrats can get new legislation through Congress, they should be winning elections on the issue of guns.

Gun regulation "is moving to the center, and past it,” said Jim Kessler, who helped Sen. Charles Schumer pass gun control policy in the 1990s before founding the D.C. think tank, Third Way.

“For the first time in decades, Republicans are losing on social issues — they’re losing on same-sex marriage, they’re losing on contraception, and now they could lose on guns because their position is so intractable,” said Kessler. “Except for a vocal minority, people know and expect that something can be done.”

However, acknowledging that the majority of murders and other violent crimes in our country are the direct result of social and cultural degradation on urban welfare plantations would be, first and foremost, an indictment of the socialist welfare state advocated by Democrats. Thus, they call for more gun control — on top of the myriad of gun control laws now on the books.

Fact is, on average almost 50 people are murdered every day, two-thirds of them with guns. It is statistically notable that about one-third of murders are not committed with guns, and moreover, blacks and Latinos commit a grossly disproportionate number of all murders and the victims are predominantly blacks and Latinos. Just watch the 11 pm local news.

In fact, the very weekend that Obama and his race hustlers attempted to politicize the shooting of Trayvon Martin by "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama's hometown paper) reported that in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously wounded. Most of the assailants and victims were black or Latino, but not a word from Obama about those murders.

As for the media misrepresentation of the Newtown attack, though virtually every news outlet is reporting that this was the "worst school attack in history," the most lethal attack on a school occurred in 1927, when a disgruntled Bath, Michigan, school-board member murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students — with a bomb.

Additionally, virtually every media reference to the assailant in Newtown refers to him as "the shooter." Well, there are some sixty million Americans who are "shooters." The assailant who murdered 27 women and children in Newtown was a sociopathic murderer who used a gun. He murdered them, not the gun.

"Arguments over the merits of gun control are made all the more difficult to navigate by the Left's stubborn denial that we are already having a debate on the issue. Gun control propositions are by no means new, and nor is there a lack of a 'national conversation on the subject.' Instead, the national conversation is ongoing, and the Left is losing it badly. Gun control advocates may talk of national soul searching and dialogue, but in truth that already exists; what they mean is that they'd like to win for a change. ... There are at least two hundred million privately owned guns in America, and Connecticut regulates access to them more strictly than most. To believe that [Friday's] crime could have been prevented, you have to presume either that a man willing to go to such grievous lengths could have been deterred from doing so by stronger laws, or that those stronger laws could rid America of privately available guns completely -- thus making the killer's task an impossible one. I believe neither thing. To pass a law is not to achieve its aims, and one suspects that any attempt at gun control in America would be destined to be filed next to Prohibition and the War on Drugs in the annals of man's folly. American liberties, including the Second Amendment and the 40-plus state-level guarantees of the right to bear arms, pre-exist the federal government, and are defined and protected in the same document from which the state derives its authority and its structure. In a free republic, the people cannot be disarmed by the government, for they are its employers, and they did not give up their individual rights when they consented to its creation. There is no clause in our charters of liberty that allows for the people to be deprived of their freedom if and when a few individuals abuse theirs." National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke

Of course it is not possible to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, but the progressives want to have law enforcement take on citizens who have not broken and laws. 11 million illegals who can get away with anything from illegally entering the country to drunk driving and murder, yet the progressives want to impose sanctions against 30 million constitutional and legal gun owners.

On September 10, 2012 John Lott wrote for Fox News:

“So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.”

As you can see James Holmes, like most of these killers, pick their targets very carefully. They do not want someone shooting back at them. I doubt a killers like Holmes or Lanza would select a school in the Harrold Independent School District.

But though the proposals that will soon be most seriously considered would most likely not have prevented what happened, men and women of goodwill — and most are — will make the proposals because it lets them feel in control. People want to do something. People, acting corporately, want to legislate and regulate because it is, next to election of leaders, the most powerful act of a democracy.

The efforts, even if they are successful, will not stop this cycle of violence.

Discussions of gun control are easier to have than discussions about mental health. But they too are easier to have than those about the collapse of the American family. History and multiple studies show that the most stable foundation of a society is a two parent nuclear household with multiple children.

God and good exist. The devil and evil do as well — the incarnation of the absolute void left in the absence of God.

Colossians 1:17 states, “[Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” As our society drifts further and further from Christ, our society holds itself together less and less. The rise of secularism coincides with the decline of family and the rise of societal chaos.

In our society, it is political incorrect to say this. Many who reject this mock Christians. They wonder why God or Jesus was not in that school room protecting those children. Liberal gay-rights activist Dan Savage on Friday was openly ridiculing Christians and mocking God when he tweeted: “God is everywhere. Except your kid's school. God too busy pouting about separation of church & state to save your kid”. Liberal pundits were retweeting him.

They choose not to understand. They have chosen the very society that generates the heinous act we saw on Friday — a society replacing ourselves and our standards with those of God. It is a society St. Paul described quite accurately in Romans 1.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

On Friday in Connecticut, an evil creature entered a classroom and gunned down children in our ever increasing Romans 1 society.

At this Christmas season we should remember the part of the Christmas story we often do not dwell on. Two thousand years ago, King Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem where they slaughtered all the boys age 2 and under. The coming of the Risen Lord was answered by this world with the loss of the innocents.

The world is full of sin. It is easy for the non-Christian to look at what happened and rationalize away that the person was mentally ill, we need gun control, etc. It is harder, especially at this time of year, for those who do believe in God to find comfort in him instead of demanding “why?” But God does not spare us the effects of sin in the world, nor does he spare the little children.

But we know by faith that “Jesus wept.” He weeps now. He welcomes home the little children and calls for us to persevere and, if we will, to turn back toward him and bring our society with us. But our society must be prepared to have larger conversations than whether or not we should regulate guns or bullets.

As a person who had a family member murdered by an alcoholic, abusive, and sociopathic husband with a shotgun I understand the difference between the weapon and the killer.

In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

We Cannot Accept Evil

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. — George Washington “

While watching the news of the Sandy Hook Elementary School where 26 people were killed 8 adults and, 18 children) by a sociopathic madman I heard a lot of talk of evil and guns. A person can be evil but a gun is an inanimate object, like a knife or a club that in the hands of an evil motivated person will be used as a weapon to carry out his evil deeds.

Fox News reported

“Twenty-seven people, including 20 children, were killed Friday when a gunman clad in black military gear opened fire inside his mother's kindergarten class at a Connecticut elementary school.

The shooter, who sources identified as Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, in the face at their home in Newtown, Conn., and then went to nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School where she taught and gunned down her entire class, according to sources. Lanza was found dead inside the school, according to officials. Eighteen of the children and six more adults were dead at the school and two more children died later, according to Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.”

Right now the news is in flux, as it always it in situations like this, so we do not know much about Adam Lanza or why he might have executed his mother and her class of kindergarteners. I am sure in the days to come we will learn more about this psychopath, his mental history and what might have drove him to commit suicide by first taking the lives of 25 people.

While we know little of the shooter or the victims it did not take long for the anti-gun crowd to lump on the band wagon of more gun control As Rahm Emmanuel said; “never let a good crisis go to waste”, and they will certainly not. They will, like they did with the Aurora, CO theater shooting, the Tucson, AZ shooting, and the Virginia Tech massacre, push their anti-gun agenda forward on the back of the victims. They will not address the issue of evil, as most of the progressive left do not believe in God, evil right and wrong. They believe that man can control everything if he works hard enough at it. They believe in the kingdom of man, not of God.

Even the President in a statement supposedly to console the grieving could not resist the opportunity to bring his political agenda into the fray along with his crocodile tears when he stated:

"These neighbors are our neighbors, and these children are our children, and we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this -- regardless of the politics." (Emphasis added)

Immediately after Obama’s remarks Several Democratic lawmakers were also calling Friday for stricter gun control.

What meaningful action is Obama talking about? Is he talking about better psychiatric evaluations of potential anti-social people? Was he talking about the violence portrayed in our culture in movies and video games? Was he talking about the music industry with their degrading and violent rap lyrics? Was he refereeing to social media where young people with borderline personality diseases such Asperger syndrome? Was he talking about the coarseness of our culture and the progressive control of a K-12 education system that does not teach right from wrong and morals based on our Judeo- Christian heritage? I don’t think he was. He was talking about one thing and one thing only — anti Constitutional gun control. This is how progressive solve problems. If you want to stop alcoholism you ban booze. I am sure any debate will not include all of the above.

This is not the first school shooting in the United States or the World. Here is a list of the major school shootings in the United States:

• Dec 14, 2012: Newtown, CT -- Sandy Hook Elementary School --- 26 are dead - 8 adults, 18 children.
• Feb. 14, 2008: A man fired into a lecture hall packed with students at Northern Illinois University, killing five people and wounding 18 before shooting himself dead.
• April 16, 2007: VA Tech, Blacksburg, VA - A student killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Polytechnic and State University in the worst single act of gun violence in U.S. history before killing himself.
• October 2, 2006: A local milk truck driver who was not Amish, tied up and shot 10 Amish schoolgirls aged 6 to 14 in their classroom, killing five of them before turning the gun on himself in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, about 60 miles west of Philadelphia.
• March 21, 2005: A 16-year-old high school student gunned down five students, a teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in far northern Minnesota before killing himself. He also killed his grandfather and his grandfather's companion elsewhere on the Chippewa Indian reservation.
• April 20, 1999: Littleton, CO -- Two students killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded more than 20 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School.

• On March 24, 1998 Michael Johnson (age 14) and Andrew Golden (age 12) walked into the Westside Middle School near Jonesboro, Arkansas and killed five people and injured ten. Until yesterday this was the deadliest massacre at a United States middle school.

• August 1, 1966: Austin, TX -- A University of Texas student, Charles Whitman, killed 16 people and wounded 32 others, including his mother and wife, in and around the campus.

Note that in all but the University of Texas shooting the gunman committed suicide. The Texas Tower sniper was killed by a courageous police officer who climbed the tower and confronted the shooter.

There have also been school shooting in the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, and France where they have very strict gun laws. And let’s not overlook the fellow in Norway who in 2011 killed 69 and injured 110 after setting off a car bomb that killed 8 and injured 209. All of this in a country with very strict guns laws. It should be noted that in Belgium it was a 20-year old man who used a knife to kill and wound kids at a day care center.

And there have been numerous knife slashings in the Hounslow area of London and by gangs in Singapore where no one owns a gun.

It’s not the gun, the knife or the club. It’s the person. While writing this I looked for a quote on the existence of evil. Of course there was the old over used quote by Edmund Burke; “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I selected the quote by George Washington because he saw that the gun was a deterrent to evil and tyranny.

What gun control advocates fail to appreciate is that every school that faces such a tragedy is an individual isolated event that demands our respect and does not deserve to be desensitized into a political debate.

By grouping today's Sandy Hook massacre as just one of "such incidents in the U.S.," politicians and gun control advocates show zero respect to any of the victims and the families affected by immediately turning this tragedy into a debate on gun control.

As our nation mourns collectively, each of the parents and family members who lost loved ones Friday face a different level of individual sorrow. They deserve our respect. And they also deserve not to have their pain used as political equity.

Before we jump to conclusions and make this a debate about the second amendment, it appears that the shooter, Adam Lanza borrowed his mother's guns for his heinous acts of murder. The guns were purchased legally and his mother was a collector of guns.

Make no mistake about it we have to do everything in our power to prevent a tragedy like this one from occurring again. Over the next few weeks we will learn about Lanza and whether he had any mental health issues that went ignored.

You will hear people mistakenly argue that no matter how big of a monster Lanza was, the “real” villains who entered Sandy Hook Friday morning were the guns in his hand.

Are we sure the absence of guns would have definitively prevented Lanza from killing? It didn't prevent Zheng Minsheng from walking into a classroom with a knife in Fugian Province on China's East Coast in 2010 and stabbing eight children to death and seriously wound five others. I am sure the parents of those eight children feel the same unimaginable pain that the parents in Connecticut feel today.

Killers find a way to kill and more laws will not stop them!

As I stated above we live in a culture where progressives deny the existence of the devil and therefore the existence of evil. Just look at what happened in Lansing, Michigan on Monday where a group of union thugs physically attacked a person who they did not agree with Shouting “I’ll Kill a Mother F***** With a Gun”! Our mainstream media (ABC, CBS and NBC) elected not to cover this outrageous behavior as it did not coincide with their progressive agenda. It’s a sad day for American TV journalism when The Huffington Post is a more honest news outlet than ABC, CBS or NBC.

That story was about how Fox News contributor Steven Crowder and others were attacked by union thugs during the protest against the new “right-to-work” law. ABC, CBS and NBC covered the protests but only ABC made mention of police having to deal with protesters. None of them mentioned the attack on Crowder or showed the videos of that attack and the thugs tearing down a tent with people in it, both widely available on the Internet hours before the evening news show broadcast. No network quoted Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa predicting “civil war” between lawmakers and union members.

All of this came after Obama told a crowd of UAW workers in Detroit:

“I’ve just got to say this,” Obama said at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Michigan before a small crowd of workers. “What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. We shouldn’t be doing that.

“You know, these so-called right-to-work laws, they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics,” Obama added to applause and cheers from the crowd. “What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”

It’s no wonder these union tugs were fired up after the President gave them plenty of verbal ammunition.

Where were Obama’s comments on this behavior? Is it any wonder why many young people today are growing up with little or no knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil? When they can post their mentally deranged thoughts on social media and see no consequences for evil or immoral behavior why shouldn’t they grab a gun and act out the sociopathic fantasies. It’s not more gun control we need; it’s more teaching of right from wrong and a better way to determine those who are a danger to society.