The calls for gun confiscation are quieting down, so now is the time to talk about real solutions to the problem.
Now that the most recent onslaught against liberty seems to be on the wane, we have an opportunity to have a real discussion of the problem, developing real solutions. Instead of the usual knee-jerk reactions of the liberty grabber leftists in demanding gun confiscation or it’s precursors.
The usual leftist response to any societal violence story they can exploit is to first demand that we all have ‘conversation’ about guns. In other words, they want to lecture us once again on our collective guilt and that we need to immediately turn in our means of self-defense.
Having that ‘conversation’ on real solutions to societal violence.
The emotional angst has died down, so let’s have that ‘conversation’ about societal violence. Of course, in this setting, it will be on facts and logic instead of ‘solutions’ based on emotion that will fail to work as advertised. This is why the left avoids having these discussions in these settings – because they can’t exploit the emotion of the moment.
This is the perfect non-emotional environment to have this discussion, one that could lead to real solutions to the problem. Learning from the mistakes made by other nations who have implemented the wrong ‘solutions’ to a problem based on emotionalism.
How did we get to this point?
A recent video (above) from the Blaze and Phil Robertson summarized the problem quite nicely.
We’ve already made the case that it’s not access to inanimate objects of aluminium or steel, since those mere tools had been around for more than a century before the emergence of the problem of societal violence. Repeating and semi-automatic firearms have been in common use since the 1870’s and the early 1900’s respectively, while societal violence didn’t become prominent until a 100 years later, so guns really aren’t the issue.
Solving problem requires properly diagnosing the cause, before the proper solution can be implemented. Phil Robertson made the very important point that the true cause was the turning away from God and the destruction of our moral underpinnings.
Our moral decline is the obvious cause of societal violence.
The case made by Phil Robertson was also echoed by the venerable conservative commentator Walter E. Williams in a recent column posted on the Daily Wire entitled: U.S. In Moral Decline. In which he makes the case we are in a state of moral decline with a set of questions that exemplify the problem:
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to such use, do you believe that there should be the initiation of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions. I bet that nearly every college professor, politician or even minister could not give a simple yes or no response.
After all, the liberty grabber left’s obsession with gun confiscation stems from a negation of an unalienable human right with this expanding into the areas of due process, presumption of innocence as well as freedom of speech. The later exemplified by a shocking poll that found that a majority of Americans want to scrap the First Amendment.
Leftists obsess over one solution to societal violence: disarming the innocent.
When it comes to the subject of societal violence, leftists have always obsessed over one solution to the problem: disarming the innocent. Never mind that it never works, or that their idea of ‘diversity’ in addressing the problem involves the use of all kinds of synonyms for the word confiscation.
They are perfectly ready to put in place any kind of solution to the problem as long as it involves some form of virtual or actual gun confiscation or it’s precursor, ‘universal’ background checks. Only someone lost in the swirl of emotionalism could think that disarming the innocent will protect the innocent. Somehow, it makes logical sense to take firearms away from people that you don’t have to worry about.
Watching Robert Francis O’Rourke fail to comprehend the implications of his insane proposal was a sight to behold. It’s as if people of his mindset cannot comprehend that controls on liberty only have an effect on the innocent, empowering the guilty at the same time.
The obvious solution to societal violence.
Since it is patently obvious that disarming the innocent won’t protect the innocent, there has to be a better solution to the problem. A solution that doesn’t involve the deprivation of everyone’s unalienable human rights.
If doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Then it should be obvious that we need to change course and go back to what actually worked in the past.
We have already proven that it’s not an issue of guns, since they were in existence decades before societal violence became a problem. We need to go back to a time when it wasn’t a problem, a time when our society was grounded in the moral principles of scripture.
Back to a time before people were taught that if it feels good, do it. Back to a time when there were inviolable rules of basic morality. Granted there were negative aspects to these times, but that doesn’t mean we have to include them in our society of today.
The Intellectual process means taking what works and discarding what does not. A moral grounding works, disarming the innocent doesn’t. That basic logic should be the principle on which we work to solve the problem of societal violence, instead of letting emotions and hysteria dictate the wrong solutions.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]