I know that some mentally unstable young person having access to weapons that are typically referred to as “guns,” more specifically “assault weapons” and “AR-15s,” leads to horrible, terrible, shockingly unnecessary events, where children in schools have been slaughtered is bad. Let me make that BAD, in all-caps. I’ll even go as far as to say it is BAD, BAD, BAD.
That said, if an AR-15 was cocked, loaded and laying on a tree stump in the woods and no one was around, would it shoot and wound or kill anyone? If the answer were, “Yes,” then no one would ever be able to buy guns, because the guns themselves would be shooting and wounding and killing everyone around gun manufacturers, gun stores and gun shows. Just the pure carnage of guns gone wild would kill the sellers of guns, so only idiots would go anywhere to buy a gun. If an idiot did that, then the idiot would suffer the same fate of anyone coming near such uncontrollable gun lunacy.
Of course, the answer to the philosophical question is, “No.” The reason is guns do not wound or kill people of any kind: It takes a crazed gunman to use a weapon to destroy lives; and if one who is crazed is left without the availability of guns to buy, then that would mean crazed killers would turn to knives, swords, bows and arrows, hammers, air compressor nail guns, baseball bats, rocks, sticks, and even bare hands to get the craziness out of their systems. All of the above would be used to wound and kill.
After the recent school shooting in Florida, I heard someone suggest arming teachers in schools, so the students and other employees at schools would have, in essence, a first defender against some crazed gunman, to defend the children until police could arrive. I also heard the argument that arming teachers would be dangerous, as teachers are not skilled with guns. People argued that putting guns in schools would do more harm than good.
The people that argue against arming teachers as a line of defense at a school are the same fools that are now marching around cities in America, promoting the punishment of guns by laws that would ban them. It is the latest media event to be broadcast into the homes of America, suggesting: “Look at how much people are against gun violence in America, especially the rampant killing of America’s school children with assault weapons, like AR-15s.”
Before I state my feelings and thoughts about such propaganda, let me first address the suggestion that teachers be armed in schools.
- First, a “teacher” would have to be either a man or woman with military experience, where the person given a gun would not immediately pee oneself, thinking the gun will shoot him or her while not looking.
- Second, the “teacher” would have to volunteer to be armed during school hours.
- Third, there would have to be a minimum of three such teachers who would be armed, as many as six, so the arming would only take place when the chosen “teacher” was not teaching students. They would act as armed security during their normal hours of not teaching.
- Fourth, there would only be one weapon that would be used to arm a “teacher,” which would be worn around the waist with a belt and holster. That weapon of choice would be kept in the front office of the school, where each designated “teacher” would go to relieve the armed “teacher” before him or her.
- Fifth, the “teacher” would observe visitors entering the main entrance of the school, with real classroom teachers, those having classrooms near all other entrance points at the school, assigned to make sure all door are closed and locked, so unauthorized entrance would be deterred.
- Sixth, communication devices would be assigned to the armed “teacher,” linking he or she to the front office, should an emergency call take the “teacher” away from the front office post. Any such emergency call would initiate a call to local police authorities.
The cost of such a program would be the cost of a firearm, belt and holster, ammunition, a communication device, and a secure gun safe. The greatest savings would come from utilizing the personnel already employed by the schools. Should a school find itself without enough qualified “teachers” to be armed, then the PTA could request parents with qualifications and free time to volunteer in this capacity. Substitute teachers could also be given consideration. The point is the presence of an armed guard ANYWHERE has the effect of deterring criminal acts.
Such a protective plan must also be realized as not being foolproof. In the same regard, someone can be killed by a driverless car while crossing the street. One could be killed by a meteor strike. There can never be a total protection from bad things happening. All security measures have their limits, just as all school districts have financial budget limitations.
Now, about the protest marches that seemingly want to address children being killed by assault weapons and guns. I have witnessed a woman that has a highly influential position at one particular organized religion (of the Christian variety) – she wears a high, pointed hat above her high priestly robe and carries around a crooked staff – advertising on Facebook about how happy she is to go on one of these marches.
- First of all, I believe there is no greater protector of humanity than God.
- Second, it disgusts me when leaders of religions (especially those professing to be closer to God than the sheep in the pews) begin twisting moral values into new words spoken by God and Jesus Christ, where the wants, desires, and ways of holy men and women are god-sent to promote the social values of those leaders.
That, in my mind, is misleading. Certainly, some folk think their brains have been surely filled with philosophies that God would strongly support. They feel so strongly about their personal beliefs, they walk outside the realm of their religion to stand publicly in the political arena. This is misleading because it is pretentious to seemingly proclaim it has been their faith in God that has sent them out into the world as protesters, recommending humanity’s ignorant masses be forced to comply with God’s wishes. It becomes a classic example of “I am a priest because I am holier than thou, and I associate with a political party that is holier than any other party that would preach a sermon against what I believe.” It implies Jesus Christ was against guns.
The problem with that last issue is Christian clergy marching for gun control is just as evil as are imams calling for fatwas. Having some leftist do-gooder casting blame on all right-wing conservatives is about as far away from knowing Jesus Christ as can be. Not once did Jesus promote the elimination or control of Roman weapons, even though Herod the Great had some unknown number of children under the age of two slaughtered, simply because some wise men came asking where they could find the King of the Jews. One would think Jesus would have gone to protest in Jerusalem saying he was Marching for His Life – Ban Crucifixion Now!!!
Jesus did not do that. Instead, he told his disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)
When someone wearing religious garb stands in public promoting a fear of guns, they are not promoting faith in God. Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)
Why would someone with a high ranking in an organized church be standing, arm-in-arm with other politically motivated protest organizers, promoting the control of firearms, if not for the purpose (at least on the surface) of saving lives?
If you are going to do that, toss away the clerical collar and put on your satanic robes and funny hats with long, curly horns. Trying to save lives means you want others to lose their souls. You are proposing that the people give up guns (now) and kneel before government, when God commanded, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” If everyone would kneel before God, it does not matter what instruments of destruction are within arm’s reach.
The ultimate reason there are crazed gunmen going into schools and shooting innocent children, wounding and killing them needlessly, is the same reason crazed gunmen in the sixties shot President John Kennedy, his brother Bobby Kennedy, and clerical protest leader Martin Luther King. Those deaths were perpetrated to gain popular support for the war in Vietnam (Kennedy out Johnson in), keeping a shadow government propping up its puppet leaders (eliminate a potential president that would expose the evil in government), and breaking all connections Americans had with their God and Jesus Christ (let the government destroy the family values of poor black folk through freebie government programs). Then, as now, the C.I.A. and other agencies of American government (F.D.A. is one of many) are deeply involved (secretly) with the indoctrination of children, through mind altering experiments.
Our government is practiced in the evil arts of making as many people as crazy as possible. The government wants children to kill children with guns, so the masses will get behind the public wanting to have the right to bear arms limited or eliminated. An unarmed populace is just as defenseless as a school full of children, when there is no one on the premises to protect them against crazed gunmen.
As most Americans will not believe this view of mine, a minority of Americas will believe it wholeheartedly. Still, whether or not it is believed is of no consequence. No law ever written by man has ever stopped anyone from breaking the laws. Just as guns do not wound and murder innocent people, laws do nothing to protect innocent people. The only laws of significance are those written on the hearts of those who fear the consequences of breaking a Law of God.
The American view of government worship can actually be seen as racist, in the regard that Americans see themselves as an elite race of human beings that are better than others in the world. To grasp this assessment, imagine how much good would be seen in priests and politicians marching in some African nation, calling for the control of guns because some “rebel faction” has guns and is taking over areas of a nation, killing, wounding, and raping students. Taking away guns would do nothing to protect the people there, because the people there are too poor to afford to buy guns for protection in the first place. They depend on the government military to protect them. However, the government military numbers fewer than the “rebels.”
Add to that the aspect that individuals making up most African militaries are also so poor they would be lured to look the other way, so “rebels” can do their evil deeds. Should priests be advocating forced limitations placed on the citizens of Africa being armed for self-protection? If not, then their advocacy in America is racist.
This is a regular state of business in the “third world” – the “nigger world” (pardon my French) compared to the elite of America and Western Europe – but here in America, where everyone has free access to credit cards and free government handouts, we can be so elite as to turn up our noses at the thought of ordinary people owning guns.
The French, as well as practically all of Europe and the people in Brussels and Geneva running the European Union, have strict limitations on ownership of firearms. France, as well as many Western European nations, has let refugees and illegal aliens settle there. With many coming from North Africa, a high influx of Muslim people has entered into nations where the laws have been largely based on the morals and principals of Christianity. The Muslims are under the influence of their religious masters, where Islam (the leaders thereof) has taught millions of Muslims to hate Westerners and to see Christians as evil people.
Instead of news about school children being murdered by crazed gunmen, France has been where Islamic terrorist have been killed by police, after innocent civilians have been murdered. Not only do these terrorist use guns illegally obtained, they drive rental trucks down promenades, killing people who do not get out of the way. They detonate bombs, many of which are made from legally obtained base materials, which kill people they have targeted (like newspapers that publish satirical cartoons). Lately, one Islamic terrorist gunman who killed several in a spree of murder, was said to have possessed hand grenades. Are those not illegal to be owned by citizens of France? Yes they are.
The point is clear. No government control of firearms can ever protect the people from the surprise attacks of people under the influence of evil.
I firmly believe there is a Holy War coming. When it will happen is anyone’s guess; but it is planned and already has elements of that plan in place. Gun control will do nothing but embolden the enemies of America. There are African-American groups across America that call themselves Muslim, which have grown to large numbers over the past six or seven decades, who seek to destroy the government that they believe enslaves all people not Caucasian. Contrary to MLK’s nonviolent revolution, the believe (like stated by Malcolm X) no revolution comes without violence. A violent revolution demands one possess guns. An easier violent revolution comes when those you wound and murder have nothing to defend themselves with.
The legal changes proposed, which are designed towards the disarming of populations, will do nothing to change those who have already disarmed themselves, for whatever reasons – moral, political, or spiritual. These intended changes will have the effect of legal mistreatment being mandated against those who do not wish to disarm, when they have never shown any signs of mental instability or a desire to wound or murder other human beings. Once a nation has forbidden its population to bear arms, the protection of a whole nation then depends on the strength and preparedness of that nation’s military – usually a small percentage of the total population able to bear arms. In America, the president is the Commander in Chief of the military, which demands the president be sane and competent, not like a mad dictator with all the arsenal of his military at his disposal, to run amok wherever he may choose.
There is divine prophecy that states nations of unarmed people will be overrun by those who seek to destroy them. There will be surprise invasions in nations where the people believe fully in the government (laws) protecting everyone, of all races, creeds, national origin, and religious conviction. Their trust is put in civility, not God. Their enemies (secretly in hiding and waiting to attack) know full well how being with arms, against those without arms, the strong can take from the weak. What the rich have can then be theirs, easily taken by wounding and killing the defenseless, with absolutely no qualms about how the rich might feel about such loss.
Perhaps, some clergy and politicians will protest in marches then? Would it not be better to protest now for all being freely armed, because the government cannot (maybe even will not) lift a finger to prevent evil?
Will it be then like it is today, when the person who plots the demise of innocents stands arm-in-arm with some moron Christian cleric, both singing “We shall overcome”? The moron thinks those song lyrics says good will overcome evil. Unfortunately, the smiling subtrevert (subversive element here secretly) will be thinking, “We shall overcome you who Allah hates.”