“Why do you care about gun control?"

“Why do you care about gun control? Do you want criminals to have guns?”

That’s a false dichotomy and faulty reasoning. The removal of guns from criminals is not the same as gun control.

One of the problems is that self-protection is a natural right, not a right conferred by a governing body. So all people have the right to protect their lives and bodies by the best available means. If guns are removed as a means of self defense, many people will be at the ‘mercy’ of anyone who would do them harm. The old, the infirm, the disabled, the small, the weak; they would be subject to harm by anyone stronger or larger or younger.

How gun control is proposed is also a problem. The attempt is to register all guns and limit their movements and transfers. By doing so you limit the ability of non-criminals to possess means of protection. What you aren’t doing is limiting the criminal’s ability to possess means of harm. With or without guns, criminals possess the ability to do harm by their willingness to commit crimes.

The de facto result of gun control is the creation of a gun registry. You no longer simply have a registry of guns, but a registry of gun owners. This creates a plethora of issues in itself, but the primary one is of definition. What defines a disallowed gun owner? Gun control proponents say, ‘criminals’. But what crimes? Violent crimes? Is assault a violent crime? One can be convicted of assault for what would generally be deemed non-violent. Sexual assault can be a streaker exposing him/herself to an unwilling participant. Fraud is usually non-violent, but is often deemed violent when coupled with coercion or threats of consequence (i.e. “Sign this document or I’ll tell the cops your son sells drugs”).

Gun control proponents also want to limit those with mental issues from having guns. Again, to whom would this apply? A new mother with postpartum depression? Should we remove guns from all new mothers until they are cleared by a doctor? Bipolar disorder is diagnosed in about 5% of people. Are they unable to buy a firearm?

And how do you prevent events where a person who would be unable to purchase a firearm obtains a firearm by violence or theft? The man who walked into that school in Sandy Hook and killed those children first killed his mother and took her guns. Some might suggest that you remove guns from the residence, but now you remove them from more than the criminal; more precisely, the pre-criminal. Entire families are held helpless against those who might do violence on them.

Those who are against private gun ownership often insist that government gun ownership is the solution. But often, the police are unable to respond to crimes quickly enough to prevent the crimes. During the LA riots, the police were unable to respond, in some cases never responding. Korean shop owners prevented loss of property and life by private gun ownership. In Ferguson, Missouri, black gun owners protected white owned businesses from being burned by rioters. A cop posted a warning which advised people to “get [a gun] and get one soon.” What is one person to do against a mob without a gun?

Why am I against gun control? Because with gun control, people are denied a basic human and natural right of self-preservation. And anyone who says you are granted this right from the government is also proposing that this right can be removed by that government. Any government which denies its people the right of self-preservation is a tyrannical one. Gun control is the foundation of tyranny.

Re-Blog - This is Not a Day Care

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

---

source:
http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/

“GOP and Dem’s switched ideology.”

if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this… “GOP and Dem’s switched ideology"... the Democrats want to take credit for everything from Abraham Lincoln to the Civil Rights Era… but facts just are so hard to come by.

but let us consider the recent Syrian refugee crisis… refugees are fleeing from ISIS in the Middle East, and we are supposed to take them without question… after all, that’s what Europe has done, and we ALL want to be more like Europe, don’t we?

well, conservatives (a.k.a. Republicans here in the US) warned that ISIS would use the cover of refugees to infiltrate into countries and enact terrible acts of terrorism in them… liberals decried this as blatant racism against “brown-skinned” and “POC”… it doesn’t matter if the intelligence agencies of multiple countries warned of this very thing… nope, it must be racism.

with the tragedy that was the Paris terrorist attacks, many people (some becoming suddenly conservative) are saying maybe we should hold off on letting Syrian refugees freely into our countries… a clear case of racism, liberals would say.

which brings me back to who is actually racist… the liberals in the US lay claim to President Roosevelt (FDR) for his generous social policies… and rightly so, as a more Democrat president could hardly be found, except perhaps in Jimmy Carter… FDR is held up to the sun as a shining example of liberalism… but, like Icarus, perhaps they hold him a bit too high.

in 1939, the German transatlantic liner St. Louis sailed from Hamburg, Germany, loaded with almost 1000 Jewish passengers… it was bound for Cuba, but Cuba was not willing to take any more refugees from Europe… with the size of Cuba and following the Great Depression, it can hardly be seen as surprising… however, modern liberals insist FDR rescued us from the Great Depression, so the US was more capable of handling a handful of refugees fleeing from the Kristalnacht pogrom… surely a liberal and Democrat hero such as FDR would welcome them to his bosom and rescue them from the scourge of fascism and racism.

not so much… [cue liberal outrage]… “but FDR was only following the immigration quotas imposed on him by those nasty racist Republicans!”… first, those quotas were passed in Congress by a margin of 323 to 71 (House)… by any measure, this was pretty bi-partisan… second, FDR could have issued an Executive Order to supersede the law.

[cue liberal outrage]… “we thought Republicans were against Executive Orders that were extra-Constitutional”… well, yes… however, i point this out to show that Executive Orders were not unknown to FDR, especially in relation to particular groups of people.

to which i’d like to address your attention to Executive Order 9066, issued by FDR in 1942… you might be more familiar with this as the order that caused thousands of people with Japanese ancestry to be taken from their homes in the US and interned in “evacuation” camps… Congress had not forced FDR to take US citizens from their homes by Executive Order… likewise, FDR could have taken in the Jewish refugees.

what is the point of all this, you might ask… at what point in FDR’s presidency did he switch from Democrat savior to Republican racist?