Monthly Archives: December 2012

A Poem About the Everlasting Word of God

I paused last eve beside the blacksmith’s door,

And heard the anvil ring, the vespers chime,

And looking in I saw upon the floor

Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had?” said I,

“To wear and batter all these hammers so!”

“Just one,” he answered. Then with twinkling eye:

“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, I thought, The anvil of God’s Word

For ages skeptics’ blows have beat upon

But though the noise of falling blows was heard

the anvil is unchanged; the hammers gone.



“They have invented a new phrase that is a black-and-white contradiction in two words—“free love.”  As if a lover had been, or ever could be, free.  It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word.”—G.K. Chesterton

The statement that, for me, captures the concept of love so clearly and yet seems totally foreign to our “disposable” society is that “It is the nature of love to bind itself.”  In today’s version of reality, what passes for love could be best described as self-gratification, or indulgence; but in all seriousness, not binding love.

If you compare Eastern and Western cultures, it is clear that Eastern society places a cultural emphasis on devotion and commitment.  Here in the West, romance is the sum and complete substance.  There must be both.  Without romance, marriage is a laborious chore, and without commitment, marriage is an insolent disrespect.

Where are these worldviews shaped?  Well, Allan Bloom in his gripping book, The Closing of the American Mind asserts that these ideologies are well engrained before freshman come to college.  It is in our young adult years that probably bring one of the more radical transformations in our individual existential lives.  As we depart the wonder of childhood and embark on a search for “truth,” often times the truthfulness of our heart is tested by love.  This is the ultimate test of character and genuineness.  The lofty philosophies of Kant must depart the classrooms and library stacks and must enter into the bedrooms and homes for practical use.

Well, what is this endeavor called love?  There is a great deal of argumentation, legislation, and political debate that seem to revolve around the very definition or anti-definition of it.   We talk of love and its ability to make the world go ‘round, unfortunately we have this completely wrong.  IN reality, it is the search for a faithful, cherished love that sends one traveling the world over!  Getting this wrong is of dire consequence!

The problem today lies in the definition of the word love.  IN our language, English, we have in a way cheated ourselves by using the same epithet love to cover a wide variety of relationships.  In Greek there were four words, each signifying a different character or type of love.  Agape refers to a pure or unconditional love—with particular reference to God.  Phileo is the love of a friend.  Storge is the love of a parent.  Finally, eros is an erotic or romantic love.

What is absolutely in contrast to our way of life is that ONLY one of them have physical connotations, but ALL involve commitment.  Considering this, in our culture, when we say “love,” it is most often physical love that is implied, and that devoid of commitment.  We refer to sex as “making love” when in actuality, if that act is without commitment in real terms, it is a literal and figurative stripping of love in which the individual is degraded to an object!  Love is not love when it has been manufactured for the moment.  Love is the posture of the soul, and its entailments are binding.  When love is shallow the heart is empty, but if the sacrifice of love is understood, one can drink deeply from its cup and can be completely fulfilled.  Of course this doesn’t ring with semiotic language and postmodern thought, so most liberal-minded thinkers will immediately dismiss this as bigoted, but that is just fine.

The idea of marital love should be contrasted by the idea of love shown in parenting. The reason is because this type of love has a common context in both the East and West.  From the jungles of Ecuador or New Guinea to the boardrooms of business transactions in Tokyo or New York or London, children are dearly valued.  It is the love for children that many different civilizations can claim a common ground.

We turn to the idea of the mother’s instinct.  Now, don’t let a naturalist like Richard Dawkins fool you with his book, The Selfish Gene.  He asserts here that the body will do whatever it has to do to protect itself and its offspring (because it shares some of its DNA).  This is hideous.  I agree that we preserve ourselves and our offspring, but we do it not because of DNA, but out of love.  That is why in an aircraft mothers are directly instructed to first cover their own faces with an oxygen mask before tending to their children.  Natural instincts would reverse that.

The unifying principle in both romantic love and parenting love is the same—one of honor and one of fidelity.  The care and impartation of love can only be communicated to our children if we teach them that it is the nature of love to honor its commitments—to bind itself.  Today, we do not understand this, and unfortunately we see pathetic self-centeredness masquerading as love.  When love is defined as it truly is, the world will be opened up to the truth.  Love and sacrifice are synonymous in a sense.  Likewise, the more one consumes love selfishly, the more wretched and empty one will become.

Ravi Zacharias gives us a glimpse into motherly love in his book, Can Man Live Without God:

“I am also reminded of a story of a young man who lived in a village and fell in love with a woman from a neighboring village.  His love for her was genuine, and he sought her hand in marriage.   She, in turn, felt no such affection for him and only exploited his feelings to her own advantage.  She made it a game, ever demanding more and more proof of his love for her. 

At last, when all ploys were exhausted, she demanded the unthinkable.  “If you really love me,” she said, “I would like to be confident that it is an unrivaled love.  To prove that, I ask you to take your mother’s life and bring her heart to me as a trophy of my victory over your love for her.”  The young man was left thoroughly confounded for weeks and grief-stricken at his option.  Unable to withstand his “loss” any longer and seeing his mother alone, in a frenzied fit he killed her and took the heart out of her body.  He ran as fast as he could to present this trophy to the girl he loved, all the while fleeing the guilt that tormented him.  While running through a heavily wooded area he stumbled and fell, and the heart bounced out of his hand.  As he attempted to rise to his feet, he frenetically rummaged through the undergrowth looking for her heart.  Finally, he spotted it and picked it up, and as he dusted off his knees he heard a voice coming from the heart saying, “Son are you hurt?…Son, are you hurt?”

I think the message clearly stands out here.  What about this though wins our deepest admiration?  That idea of sacrificial love does not come from matter, but was placed there in our minds by the creator Himself!  That is why we sympathize!  Our capacity to recognize love comes from God, and therefore both the definitive terms of love and sacrifice that love entails must come from Him!

Love has demands.  Love also requires sacrifice.  Today’s high paced world sometimes sees our priorities get inverted and we squander the sacred to protect the profane.   It is the love of Christ that challenges our priorities and addresses the need of the human heart to love and be loved.  He becomes  the consummate expression of love, and in knowing Him we find that love which brings meaning.

What about love in other religious faiths?  One of the common attacks against Christianity is that it is the only “exclusive” worldview.  Well, this is a pose.  All worldviews are exclusive.  On the issue of worldviews, if you were to seriously engage any religious philosopher in conversation on the concept of love in other religious teaching you would probably be surprised at what surfaces.  In Buddhism the very founder, Gautama Buddha, renounced his wife and family in search of inner peace.  In Hinduism the concept of love is more that of pity.  In Islam, at best, submission is demanded to a compassionate god, but more one reads the workings of this compassionate god the more compassion seems a vacuous term.  Only in the Christian faith is life with God always portrayed as a relationship of love.

In one of his books, Dostoevsky depicts a conversation between two of his characters discussing Hell.  “Hell,” says one of them, “must be the inability to love.”  I agree entirely.  IN that sense, all hell has broken loose on our culture, for with all the talk of love, we witness more betrayal, and the breakup of the family now dominates our society.  Unless this trend is remedied, we will disintegrate as a civilization, for meaninglessness will unleash violence even upon those we claim to love.  The love of God is indispensable to meaning—that love is revealed in Christ and may be experienced personally.

Christian/Atheism Meme

I saw a facebook meme today that read:

Being an atheist is okay

Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay.

Being a Christian is okay.

Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist, or otherwise hateful person in the name of Christianity is not okay.

I notice an interesting way in which this is phrased (cleverly as to imply which party wrote it I might add)….In the remarks about atheism, the phrase is about ideas, with the charge against Christianity, the attack is not ideological but personal…I think you should position the charges univocally.

I agree that the institution of religion, and even Christianity has done some atrocious things throughout history, but this says nothing about the person of Christ.  This says everything about man and his need for Christ.

Ravi Zachariah’s notes:  The reason we are against racism is because a persons race is sacred.  One’s ethnicity is sacred, and you cannot violate it.  The reason we (Christians) react against the issue of homosexuality is because sexuality is sacred too.  My problem  is:  how does this person treat sacred one and desacralize the other?

I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else’s life than I can justify my proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries.

Every man who is an able bodied man will tell you, temptation stalks him every day.  Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse?  Probably Not!  You can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight,  is entertained by the imagination, and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be better—they aren’t.  They will leave you emptier.  So, a disposition or a proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition and that proclivity.  That goes across the board for all sexuality.

When God created man and woman, it was His plan—not our plan.  It is extraordinary what he said…”It is not good for man to live alone.”  Well, man wasn’t alone.  God was with him—so, why did he say that?  God created the mystique and the majesty and the charm and the complimentary nature of womankind in a way that made it possible for her to meet his emotional needs that God Himself put only in her.  Outside Himself, From Himself, in her complementariness.  That sacred commitment is a design by God.

Well, some may say, “John—well you don’t know what its like to have this disposition…”  No, I don’t, but I have talked to people who do.  One of the greatest saints of recent memory was Henry Nouwen.  He was a professor of psychology and Harvard University.  Some years ago he went to St Petersburg, Russia and went into the famed Armitage museum .   He saw the painting of Rembrandt on the Return of the Prodigal Son.  He looked at that painting and couldn’t get his eyes off of it.  Not for one minute, two, or an hour…but 3 hours.  He sat fixated upon the painting.  It changed his life.  He came back to Harvard, retired his position and then went to work for the mentally retarded in Toronto.  He disclosed in his final book while in Toronto that he was dispositionally a homosexual; but, never fulfilled that for the sake of Christ.  All we can do is pray that God can give us the strength to resist fulfilling physically the desires that would go against God’s will. You see, the sin is not being dispositionally a homosexual.  The Bible never condemns this.  The problem is acting upon it.

Logically incoherent

It is time to confront the onslaught of liberalism and turn it on its proverbial ear.  In the wake of the heinous act that we saw in Connecticut, it is clear the Left has positioned itself to act while citizens are still emotional, rather than wait until logical conclusions can be drawn—this is the modus operandi of the liberal left—never let a good tragedy go to waste.

 It never fails. Every time there is a mass shooting, liberals run to the cameras screaming for more gun control laws.

Hypocrisy is the name of the game in the liberal party.  Take an issue like abortion.  No liberal is “pro abortion;” however, they are “pro choice.”  What?  Why would an individual NOT call themselves a “pro abortion” advocate unless they saw a fetus as more than just a random collection of cells–as a developing person!?  Do you see the hypocrisy yet?  This is the incoherent left.  Try this.  Martin Luther King Jr., the great Civil Rights activist preached a biblically sound  message of merit based judgement rather than based on skin color.  This worked for the 60’s; however, into the 70’s and surely into the present day, groups like the ACLU, NAACP, and other groups affiliated with the left have since decided that racial based systems are indeed needed after all.  Today when a young man or woman goes to college, he goes as Tom, Joe, or Bill.  When he graduates he is African-American, Asian-American, or Latino-American.  No longer is he an individual, he is a part of a group.  This is the hypocrisy of the left.  It has further been seen most recently with the addition of Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina being added to the Senate.  His addition has been met with a torrent of criticism from the supposedly “open to the advancement of colored people” left.  Scott being a black American is a republican, which makes him by default–“not for the cause.”  We see the same thing with Robert Griffin III.  You can read about Scott here and Griffin III here.

NOW for some real hypocrisy!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of those hypocrites. She enjoys armed protection being a US Senator. Guys with guns are always around protecting her. It also should be noted that back in the 70′s, Feinstein was a concealed weapon carrier.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

 Wow, how times have changed. Feinstein isn’t the only hypocrite. Most liberal politicians are and most enjoy the protection of armed police officers, security guards and bodyguards. Their protection can’t be compromised but the average citizen’s can. Look at anti-2nd Amendment enthusiast, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has around the clock armed protection as he pushing anti-gun legislation. Guns that protect him are good. Guns that protect citizens who can’t afford armed bodyguards are bad.

Here is the problem with Bloomberg.  He has already reached into the rights of the citizen and removed their right to buy a 32-oz soda.  The result—now the individual just buys two 16-oz drinks.  No problem.  What will happen with Bloomberg limits the amount of rounds that can go into a clip?  Well, nothing.  It will just increase the amount of clips that perpetrators buy, the amount of ammo that they buy, and the amount of guns that they purchase.  Instead of controlling guns in a positive way, he will instead be controlling them in a negative way.  This is how the left works.  This is leftist logic 101.

Harry Reid is another hypocrite who screams about more gun restrictions but Reid bragged about carrying a gun all the time.

“We hear a lot about guns and self-defense and that’s good, I understand that. I was a police officer where I carried a gun and as some of you know during my time being Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went. So I know what a gun and self-defense is.”

Then there is Vice President Joe Biden.  This man is expected to lead the White House task force to examine more gun control legislation, but back in 2008 he did everything he could to convince voters that his running mate supported the Second Amendment.  

STOP–Simply put he is A and Not A at the same time.  This violates the law of noncontradiction.  The left is a perpetual ideology of self-defeating principles.  This same line of logic would have you beleive that you could be a married bachelor or that a circle could be more than 360 degrees, or that a triangle could have more than three sides.

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”

Biden informed the crowd that he was the proud owner of two guns.

“If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,” Biden added, referring to Obama.  Now the tune has changed.    Suddenly guns are the enemy of the sate and those who support the right to bear arms are domestic terrorists.

But the biggest hypocrite is President Obama. Again he is protected by armed Secret Service agents twenty-four hours a day, seven days a weeks and will continue to be protected by armed agents until his death. As a Illinois Senator, Obama showed his true colors and pushed for gun control. As president, Obama didn’t do much or call for gun control in his first term. However, now that he doesn’t have to worry about voter’s wrath, Obama is calling for gun control and agenda furthering gun bans.

This is the same hypocrite whose administration has allowed the illegal trafficking of high-power firearms into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (Fast and Furious). He wants weak-minded Americans to believe that more laws will stop the flow of firearms into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, yet his ATF can’t stop these weapons from crossing the border  because they are allowing it.

Even more recent is how Obama has used the tragedy in Connecticut.  “Team Obama” is actually raising money off the victims of this disaster!

What may be even worse is his press conference today, where he actually used this tragedy to push his insane tax hikes.

And then we get to the crux of Obama…Here is what he THINKS his mandate is:  “I am betting vast majority of responsible gun owners would back efforts to stop irresponsible users from obtaining ‘weapons of war.'”  Weapons of War?  Really?  Ok Barrack.  Ok.

This brings us to the argument.  May citizens arm themselves?  Is this an over-reach by the founders or is this an inalienable right?  The 2nd Amendment states that A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 Here are the implications of the statement.  The founders weren’t talking about hunting, nor were they talking about recreational target shooting.  They were talking about the citizen protecting themselves from a tyrannical government.  At the time of the Revolution, there was a strong mistrust of the government of Great Britain. Colonists knew that the only way to protect themselves from the same type of tyranny in the future was for citizens to be able to form a militia to protect their freedom. When The Bill of Rights was written, this protection was included. Since that time there has been a disagreement among constitutional scholars about whether this right was for individual citizens to protect themselves or for states to maintain a military presence. According to current interpretation of the Second Amendment, the government does not have the right to prevent it’s citizens from owning guns. However, this amendment is argued about quite often, and is mentioned in the news almost daily.

Here is the problem with an interpretation that does not allow its citizens to have the right to bear arms“…being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Simply put, if you take the right to bear arms away, one no longer lives in a free state.  The Republic becomes a true dictatorship.

That guns deter crime is well known to liberals, especially those who make the loudest public opposition in favor of gun control. Take Richard Daley (former Chicago mayor) or any number of the Hollywood folks (Quentin Tarantino–he surely would never glamorize violence). Many of these people claim that there is absolutely no positive to owning guns. While they say this, they themselves have full-time (armed) bodyguards who follow them everywhere they go. Hypocrite? The former Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley or even the current one, Rahm Emmanuel wouldn’t even consider setting foot in some of the crime-infested neighborhoods in Chicago without their gun-toting bodyguards. While this is fact, the people who live in those areas, mostly the poor, continue to face danger, and yet the left wants to take guns out of their hands and possibly take the ability to protect themselves away?

Why is it that Obama himself, the anointed one, is in favor of stringent gun control laws but yet enjoys the blanket of protection provided by the very thing he despises?  Do you seriously think if a gunman tried to come within 300 yards of his daughters’ school that a bullet wouldn’t be in the guys head?  If the secret service shooter missed, all the major news networks would label the sharpshooter as a racist for missing.  They would instantly be FOR guns and for high skilled marksmanship.

The biggest and sickest implication is this.  Is your life, the life of your family, and the life of your child less valuable than the life of Mr. Obama and his family?  In a word, no!  Why then must you surrender the ability to protect them in the same manner that they enjoy this security?  How is this logically coherent?  When will a real journalist ask Jay Carney, the VP, or Obama himself if they will surrender their armed protection as they do away with the citizens’ right to bear arms?

What is the solution?  Well, we must first understand how to deal with this incoherent logic.  Who do we turn to?  Well, Thomas Sowell.

Now, once you watch that video I think you will see there are some clear differences in ideology that make it clear why two different citizens could have such different reactions to the same situation.

“Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves.”–G.K. Chesterton

Is the truth enough or must we fashion a fictional account of the situation to fit our agenda?  This is precisely what the left consistently does.  Benghazi, for example.

So the solution: Dr. Thomas Sowell offers 3 questions that destroy most liberal arguments:

Gun Control–or a reinterpreted 2nd amendment–or more strict gun laws

1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?

I think you will find that most arguments run on emotion–this is why the voices are so loud today, just a few days after the horrific act.  Once logic and reason is able to sink in, the left knows that their moment will pass.  If they are able to capitalize on the tragedy, they will win.  This is their M.O.

Gun Control

Anytime tragedy strikes, it is horrendous; however, when it affects children it is even more horrifying. What shocks me is the lack of decency that some politicians both on the right and the left have in politicizing this thing while mothers and fathers are still grieving. There has been plenty of time to sort matters like this out since the last school shooting happened. History seems to show that after tragedies, we never act. In fact, in this case it seems over the past several years we have gone backwards.

Solution? Well, how about a Simple fix: ban guns or increase the price on bullets? Nah, this wont work. As Ravi Zacharias has said, “Legislation is just forced compliance.”

I personally don’t think it’s a gun issue at all (at the root of the issue), I think it’s an issue of morality. We live in a culture that has embraced the “new morality” that the great 19th century German atheist philosopher Nietzsche talked about. If society can “kill” God and eliminate religion from society, then morals will erode and man will be liberated from its confines… I see this today. Now this will meet disagreement, but how do we reconcile banning guns because of murder when we routinely kill millions of babies per yer through legal abortions? How do we address this? Now, I have seen a lot of conservatives about the blogosphere lobbying for GUN RIGHTS…but instead, they should be doing what the great William F. Buckley Jr. said, “Conservatives should be adamant about the need for the reappearance of Judeo-Christianity in the public square.” It is gone today…Christians have failed and society is in ruins.

Now, in the interim…in terms of guns: We can respond in a few ways. Surely the gun itself will be the blame and not the man. Today’s materialists and naturalists like Richard Dawkins will surely blame this on the gun and not the conscious self, for that (the conscious self) doesn’t exist anyways. The gunman was just doing what his internal wiring made him do. He had no control. So, we will take the gun out of his hands. This will solve it. Remove guns from culture.

However, remember what the great Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis said, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” We must be careful how we act in response to something. Why didn’t we act prior? We should have learned lessons from Columbine (instead we decided to legalize the use of marijuana in Colorado–smart). Why knee-jerk now? Surely liberties will be snatched away due to the laziness of politicians’ refusal to deal with things over the course of time. On another note… A Jewish friend of mine said today “As a Jew it would sound like to me as if somebody were blaming gas for the gas chambers and not the Nazis…” I even saw a gun control meme today that lists the killings due to gun violence (of course with the USA at the top), and it had West Germany listed as a country. Really? For 2012?

Another factor to consider about CT, is that In 2011, Connecticut was ranked as having the fifth toughest gun laws in the United States. Gun laws can’t prevent actions of the insane. Or can it? Which insane are we trying to control? Who defines insane? Is PTSD insanity? Is a veteran from Iraq insane? Surely not in every case. Why then are many of them being treated as such?

That seems to be a sad story. Vets can’t get guns? Is this just anecdotal? I hope so.

Now it is true that, when an unarmed person is confronted by an armed criminal, passive resistance is generally better than fighting back. But that’s because fighting back involves everything from using ones fist to kicking and screaming to trying to run away. Fighting back doesn’t work for female victims because their assailants are almost always men, and men are typically stronger than women. By far the safest way to defend oneself against criminal threat is to own a gun and know how to use it.

That guns deter crime is well known to liberals, especially those who make the loudest public opposition in favor of gun control. Take Richard Daley (former Chicago mayor) or any number of the Hollywood folks (Quentin Tarantino–he surely would never glamorize violence). Many of these people claim that there is absolutely no positive to owning guns. While they say this, they themselves have full-time (armed) bodyguards who follow them everywhere they go. Hypocrite? The former Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley or even the current one, Rahm Emmanuel wouldn’t even consider setting foot in some of the crime-infested neighborhoods in Chicago without their gun-toting bodyguards. While this is fact, the people who live in those areas, mostly the poor, continue to face danger, and yet the left wants to take guns out of their hands and possibly take the ability to protect themselves away?

Well, there is a simple answer here. Its up to the police to protect the people. Yes, I know this; however, how often are the police on the scene when a crime is being committed? Usually they show up after the fact and then try to track down the criminal. The best strategy and means of protection for a person who is being attacked isn’t to yell for the police, who are often too far away to help, but to reach for a weapon. Sadly, most crimes are never solved, the police departments may be less a deterrent to possible criminals than the threat of an intended victim carrying a gun.

Yale economist John Lott, whose study “More Guns, Less Crime” is the largest ever conducted on the effects of gun control laws. After examining every county in the nation over two decades, Lott and his colleagues found that the more restrictive the gun control laws in a county, the higher the crime rates! In general, when counties pass right-to-carry laws, which allow people of sound mind who have NO CRIMINAL RECORD to carry guns, their crime rates go down. Moreover, when counties make it more difficult for their law-abiding citizens to buy and carry guns, their crime rates go up. The reason for these outcomes is not merely that gun owners are in a position to defend themselves against criminals, but also that criminals are more likely to be deterred when they don’t know who is armed and who is not

Lott shows that background checks are largely useless since they have no effect in preventing criminals from acquiring guns. Mandatory waiting periods mainly extend the period in which people are vulnerable to crime before they can secure the protection of a firearm. Also, the number of young children who die by setting off a firearm is very small: between thirty and fifty a year. Of course one death is tragic, but vastly more children drown in pools and bathtubs, or are killed in car wrecks, than die from gun wounds. Gun owners should keep their firearms under lock and key (if this shooter in CT DID get his firearms from his parents, how did he get into the safe??), out of reach of children, but also need to be accessible for use if needed.

None of this is to deny the danger that guns impose. They are dangerous as are automobiles. Being reckless with guns as with cars can lead to injury or death. I agree with gun laws and the NRA supports laws that prohibit the possession of guns by convicted violent criminals, juveniles, and laws requiring computerized criminal records checks on retail gun purchases.

The single-minded liberal focus on the dangers of guns can blind us from seeing that guns, like cars, also make our lives better and more secure. Guns do this by making it easier to defend ourselves. For women, guns are an equalizer: They neutralize the strength advantage that male assailants enjoy. For people who live in dangerous neighborhoods or engage in dangerous professions—like operating a convenience store, or driving a cab—guns are a virtual necessity.

Upon completing his research, John Lott, a mild manner Yale professor, went out and bought a 9 mm semi-automatic Ruger.

Irrational proposal: Seize guns from the law-abiding. Rational proposal: Register the mentally ill with the feds so they can’t buy guns. That is about all I can come up with. However, either way you go, you are infringing on someone.

For schools, Lunatics will always find guns. Want to prevent tragedies in schools? Arm the Principals. That is gun control. Or assign National Guardsman to the School. Do you think an armed soldier or two or three on every campus would help? It couldn’t hurt?

And no matter what WE do, the poor innocent children cannot be returned to their parents.

But, I agree, something has to be done.

Here is John Lott’s book in PDF…great read.