I don't have to comment on everything.
Yet I'm writing this.
So anyway, on the latest shooting in Texas. I have nothing pious to say. It isn't apathy, or is it? I'm not sure. The thing is, the shooting follows closely upon the heels of the Vegas massacre. You know, the strange, single shooter armed with an arsenal of assault rifles who scored the largest mass shooting in U.S. history prize. He was a nice guy, never harmed anyone, minded his own business, he just liked to gamble and he loved guns. When you stockpile weapons, at some point you have to do something - like go on a big hunt.
On the other hand, the guy in Texas was an abuser and a bully, an angry, hateful man - who beats animals and little kids. A bully. Yet the guy in Vegas just liked to shoot.
Guys love their guns - they want their guns, and they use them to score, to get even, and when necessary - to triumph over their enemies and those who are weaker and more vulnerable. This country awards these guys with tons of news coverage, exploiting the shock and awe, until the audience gets bored with that. Yet they are always guaranteed a place in the NRA Hall of Infamy. They live on forever as the most notable shooters in history.
Anyway - you aren't supposed to talk about it. That's why politicians insist up thoughts and prayers immediately after an event, cultivating the shock and awe and redirecting all the focus upon the sadness and consolation that can only come from God ...
Don't mention gun control - don't even think about it.
Gun control ... it will be "controlled" eventually, by force. There are consequences to every thing in life and while it is still a constitutional right to bear arms, I am thinking because of these continued mass murders, that right may eventually be denied. It will not be an easy win though, but a costly one.
ReplyDeleteMass murderers will still kill innocent folks without guns ... New York comes to mind as does France, Germany.
I am praying.
The guy who shot him was an NRA member.
ReplyDelete"I see guns and dead people"
DeleteI don't, Terry. I see guns in the hands of stupid, irresponsible, evil people
killing innocent folk while the man who shot the killer in Texas was a responsible gun owner who knew exactly what he had to do in order to save the lives of those not yet shot to death inside their place of Worship.
I do not own a gun but if I did and this was happening across the street from my house, I would have done the same thing.
When I was watching the Canadian news last night this incident was mentioned in an editorial. The reporter basically said Americans will be shocked and then at some point not to far down the road will shrug and say it will probably happen in their town/city/hamlet at some time and that's the price you pay for having the constitutional right to bear arms. Freedom supersedes everything else, even safety.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem is that those with mental health issues ate mainstreamed, even when there is reason to believe they're a danger to the public. Another problem are the places that want to restrict conceal carry permits.
Delete"All these things are part of an interrelated matrix." - Z
DeleteThe NRA has undermined the Constitution by arguing that all weapons are "arms." Machine guns and automatic weapons are weapons of war. Weapons of mass destruction. The second amendment does not grant us an unlimited right to possess such weapons. It is about money and profit for the gun and ammo manufacturers. This slaughter is about money! It is sickening but true. Sportsmen and responsible gun owners do not buy or use them. Other countries do not allow individual ownership of these weapons. Let's be honest here. Nothing will change because the people making big, very big profits, will not let it. So far these mass murders have been in open carry states. A coincidence? I think not. The heros tried but they did not stop or kill him. He killed himself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely Wallace. It's profiting the arms trade. And, you are right - the shooter did end his own life. Thanks for your great comment here.
DeleteThe man stopped him from killing more innocent people. That was the goal, imo. Reports claim that the man who shot the killer was able to penetrate the killer's armor. I bet he was bleeding out while they were in pursuit since it was also reported he made a final call to his father telling him he "was shot and not gonna make it." He crashes his vehicle and only then does he kill himself. A responsible gun owner saved lives.
DeleteThe arms trade will always have money, power, control. We can talk, debate, argue, talk and debate some more, pass laws and more laws .. but these lone wolf killers will continue to kill despite whatever laws are in place and not necessarily with guns either. They are smart, cunning and bide their time much like a wolf does.
Yaya you are so smart and kind but I think misinformed on this topic. Canada, Australia, England and most all developed nations do not have this mass murder by weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because you, as an individual cannot purchase or own them. Yes, terrorists can make bombs, rent trucks to mow down people, or a multitude of other evils means but angry abusive men with family and personal grudges probably will not. As a nation we lack the will to protect our own. This man had done his evil deed and was fleeing. The intervention was too late. He was being chased. God help us if the best protection we have is a gun toating bystander. There are much better ways to prevent. They will not happen however. Too much money to be made on the lives of innocent people.
Delete2nd amendment was about King George's attempted gun grab, wh8ch led to Lexington and Concord. The idea is to prevent tyranny.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNeither smart nor misinformed as you claim, wh. I am well aware of what goes on/does not go on in other countries as well as here at home - guns or no guns.
DeleteIf all we got is an alert bystander who just "happens to be there" then I will take my chances since he did save lives and did manage to hit the killer who then dropped his weapon and fled.
The idea was to have men armed and ready to fight in a militia since there was no standing army. In England personal gun ownership was outlawed to control against a coup. Supporters of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights use this same logic. We need our guns to protect us from government tyranny. Like there is anyway to match police and army fire power. Their argument is a smoke screen, a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, dear wh, yours is not the only opinion to consider. I support the right to bear arms and if the right to do so means even more restrictions, so be it but it ain't gonna stop a killer no how.
DeleteI'm in California with very strict gun laws and a liberal government and still, San Bernardino County became a slaughter house because of guns ... go figure.
And for the record, I don't support high powered rifles or as you say, "weapons of mass destructions" ownership.
DeleteWere I a gun carrying citizen, I prefer a small gun with a rose colored/Mother-of-Pearl whatamacallit. (>x<)
We are the militia. G8nd becausr of king Georges g8n grab attemp.
DeleteBlood will flow on all sides. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
ReplyDelete