Posted on 12/17/2012 9:05:37 AM PST by NKP_Vet
On Friday in Connecticut, more than two dozen, mostly children, were gunned down in an act of evil.
I once read an account that young men killed on the beaches of Normandy, as they lay dying, called out for their mothers. I tear up at even the glancing thought of the cries of the children in Connecticut and dare not take the mental walk down that road.
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 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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Erick Erickson may think debates on inalienable rights are "worth having".
I do not.
Wrong.
Having trained and armed teachers, which will be proposed by this Newtown resident and parent, would have stopped the massacre. Further eroding the 2nd Amendment Right of law abiding citizens, or making schools more "gun free" and vulnerable than they already are is not the answer.
It is not Mr. Erickson's, nor anyone else's purview to question rights confirmed to us in the US Constitution by suggesting these rights be illegally abridged for expediency in the wake of Newtown.
If they want to have this discussion, then they should have it in a forum where 3/4ths of the states can ratify their amendment to take away my right under the 2nd Amendment.
This recent event is a complete tragedy and it warrants compassion and decency; it does not legitimize all the ghouls, political opportunists, rabid liberal rights-takers and their ilk in masking their goals with the sorrow of this.
What we need to be discussing is how people who meant to do well caused this. Years ago Hollywood made a film called One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest. The discussion at that time lead to the closing of state mental institution and thousands of people with mental problems ended up on the streets. We now call some of them Homeless. Others were made the problem of their families and even those with serious problems were given “counciling” and drugs to “help” them. Well, just because you “mean” to do well doesn’t mean that will be the outcome. The discussion should have led to how to improve the system and not eliminate the system. They alway miss at what they aim to fix, and death and destruction is always the result.
“They alway miss at what they aim to fix, and death and destruction is always the result.”
Amen! You nailed that.
I think Eric knows the Constitution is going to have be fought for in order for it to survive, and the gun arguement is the tip of the spear.
The Second Ammendment ranks plenty high in the Constitution, but we are overtaken by communists who are now entrenched in government and media and culture, therefore are empowered to make a very good run at diluting it.
Our showing in this fight will be dependent on the engagement of the people themselves, because we have too few in power who can win it for us alone.
Today we feed crazed people medicine. They go out and kill someone and they say—Oh!! It’s ok he just got off his meds.
A woman goes from Housewife to whore, and they say: Oh it’s fine she is just bi-polar.
This kid was nutty as a fruit cake and he was just autistic.
I believe Erickson was speaking to the proposals that the left would actively push for. IE stricter gun laws, more gun-free zones, etc. The idea of arming qualified teachers is by far the best idea, and I’m sure Erickson would agree. But that isn’t the idea that’s going to be debated, sadly. The dems will quickly move to make a mockery of it and it will wrongly be dropped.
These constant CNN, MSNBC, FOX et al ghoul sessions are serving as springboards for influence of the ignorant electorate to get rid of guns, period. Eric, by his discussion, is contributing to this. He should preface his treatise first and foremost that there should be no discussion except one that enacts a new Amendment, if they can do this.
The unending pressure of the Communists all are related to destroy the US from within and externally, too.
1. Abortion
2. God out of schools
3. Unchecked third-world immigration, including Muslims
4. Environmental lies (man-made GW, anti-fracking, etc.)
5. Radical homosexuality
6. Weakening the economic base
7. Media’s outright propaganda
8. Anti-gun
0. Pro-depedence (FDR and LBJ take over 50% into their arms)
The onslaught is now in full motion by Holder, Nappy, the Dems and Obama/Soros.
They want a Communist state, period.
The guns grabbers like DiFi and Lautenberg could be the tipping point and Obama’s “well-funded-as-the-military” Civilian Force could be implemented, along with drones, to curb “dissent” of the bitter clingers.
These are terrible events in Connecticut, but the exploitation is worse by the Marxists. They have no soul and no moral compass, we are facing the God haters in full view.
I agree 100%. Don’t get me wrong. And I believe Erickson does as well. I think He was just stating that this horrible event is one that the left feels they can really push us into a debate about the issue. So we have to prepare to debate it. I believe sense and logic will win out, but we can’t just sit on the sidelines.
Understood. I am only standing fast that any ‘discussion’ be one from unassailable rights affirmed by the US Constitution. There is no room for appeasement on this because that is what the rabid rights-taking left is all about. Take a little, take a little, take a little more, voila! We got what we wanted in the end!
When we submit to a debate on one inalienable right, we put them all on the table. Like it or not.
My Second Amendment rights are inalienable and not subject to debate or negotiation. Neither are yours.
Agreed.
My favorite is when they ask for something completely crazy, and when we say no, they ask us to meet in the middle to “compromise”. Which just happens to end up where they wanted to be in the first place.
I am sure you’re justified in believing in our rights and that they are fixed infinitum, by the power of our Constitution.
Reality is telling us there is debate going on out there about one or more of those rights, and we better be able to decide if we are going to fight to keep them, one at a time. It is a shame we have to defend in this country of all places, our constitutional freedoms, but clearly the Constitution is in trouble and needs us.
By definition, inalienable, or natural, rights are fixed by God who gave them. Not government.
I'm not willing to debate God, and I expect those who claim to represent me in our elected bodies not to debate God either. Unrealistic? Possibly. But I'm not willing to walk the slippery slope and let the left determine which of my other natural rights are open for 'debate'.
I don’t disagree. I just believe there was a “debate” and that it is over, and the fight begins. The debate was orchestrated for years and indoctrinated by the Left. It will be up to us to water the tree of liberty.
You need two sides to debate. I guess my line in the sand has been drawn pretty deeply. But you are quite right. When it is time to water the tree of liberty, people who have not given up their natural rights will be at the business end of the water supply.
LOL! Dear friend, I will see you there, on the business end. Thx. Rita
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.