It's actually kind of pathetic. The liberals are running around biting their knuckles and wringing their hands over all the violence. And, in their efforts to find a remedy, they are resorting to their typical approach based on feelings rather than common sense, facts and reality.
News flash — guns are inanimate objects. Guns aren't the problem. The people who misuse them are.
We are now to believe that Joe Biden is going to determine exactly what the problem is, our ultraliberal president will propose some major attack on our right to bear arms, and the liberals will assume they've addressed the problem. And we will have accomplished absolutely nothing except to surrender more freedom and give the government even more control over our lives.
In my mind, the reason for the violence is quite simple. When we eliminated God from our society, it created a vacuum. Evil rushed in to fill that void. Sound too simple?
When I was in high school in the 1950s, it was not uncommon for a student to receive a gun as a present and then bring it to school in their vehicle to show it off to their teacher during recess. I don't remember any shooting rampages and mass killings.
The First Amendment states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The liberals have bent and twisted that to mean that God must be eradicated from our society, and they have pretty much accomplished that goal.
God is good. The opposite of good is evil. God has been virtually eliminated from our society. You do the math.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Behind tax inversions
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Lying time of year
- Won’t stop drilling
- Opposed to efficiency?
- Ride-sharing’s advantages
- Office or ‘hospital clinic’?
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision
- Coal’s biggest threat