There’s a prophecy in the Bible concerning a time when there will finally be a lasting peace between nations and men which up to this point the world has been unable to achieve. The prophecy I’m referring to is in Micah 4:3 which says:
And He will judge between many peoples And render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war.
Who is the “He” that is being referred to in the verse I just quoted? Unfortunately, according the prevailing belief amongst the populations of the world, including the United States, it’s some charismatic politician who claims to know what’s best for us. Much to their dismay, this prophecy is not about any of them, it is about Jesus, the coming Messiah.
Over two hundred years ago a group of men wrote a document that laid the foundation for a great republic which said that the rights and liberties granted to men (and women) were bestowed by God not government. This group of men were the authors of the United States Constitution which was, and still is, the greatest document given to the world, second only to the Scriptures.
Amendment II of the Unites States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, if you listen to certain politicians like Hillary Rodham Clinton for example, you would think that it is the NRA (National Rifle Association) not the Constitution that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The NRA may be an advocate of gun rights but it isn’t the guarantor of gun rights.
Nevertheless, the Scriptures predicted many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. One of those false prophets was Karl Marx who proposed a different gospel. Marx’s gospel preached the concepts of socialism and materialism. What Marx and his followers believed in was the class struggle between the industrial working class (proletariat) and the wealthy middle class (bourgeoisie).
Marx’s ideology came to be known as communism. The same communism embraced by [the former] Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam. While the United States is not listed among those communist countries, it is however, leaning towards socialism, maybe not the radical Marxian variety but a type of socialism nevertheless.
How did this leaning towards socialism come about? Well, it came about as a result of our Western democracy committing fornication with Marxian socialism which produced the bastard child called the ‘New Liberalism.’
So, what does this new liberalism, with its roots in Marxism, have to do with guns? The answer is everything! You need to understand that the goal of the Marxists is the overthrow of all capitalist societies—through revolution if necessary—so that they can bring about their dreams of a socialist utopia. Assuming this is true, then what is the last thing they (communists) want the bourgeoisie to have? Well, you guessed it, they don’t want you to have guns.
Not willing to let any good crisis go to waste, the radicals in the left-wing press were quick to invent new arguments to justify the government taking action, once and for all, to end the private ownership of firearms, i.e., to end the “pervasiveness of gun violence in the United States.” After all, “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history,” according to a recent article by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.
Of the 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, 63% were suicides. I guess you could argue that if guns had been confiscated in 1968 then all those gun-related deaths from suicides could have been prevented. Sounds good, but maybe those in the 63% would have found other ways to take their own lives, possibly by falling on their own swords.
Occasionally I’ll take a ride over to the Webster Flea Market in Sumter County, Florida to pick up some fresh local produce. I also like to wander around to check out all the odd and bizarre stuff they have for sale. It’s not unusual to find swords and knives; guns; and guitars out in the open for sale. As far as I can remember, I never saw a sword or knife leap off the table and stab anyone. Likewise, I never saw a gun load itself and shoot anyone; and I certainly never saw a guitar get up and play “Purple Haze” on its own. All these items are inanimate objects; they only become good or evil depending on how people decide to use them.
Since elements of the lunatic left-wing can’t get their gun confiscation laws passed, they’ve decided to turn their attention to the gun manufacturers. If they can somehow manage to hold the gun manufacturers liable for the deaths resulting from misuse of their products then they can put them out of business. Problem solved. Better yet, instead of going after Smith & Wesson why don’t they go after the Chinese who invented gunpowder and caused the problem in the first place?
It’s interesting that the New York Times columnist chose to compare gun-related deaths to war deaths but ignored some other interesting statistics such as comparisons to the number of auto related deaths or the number of abortions since 1968.
Let’s take a look at some statistics for comparison. Remember, according to the New York Times columnist, there were 120,130 or 9% more gun related deaths than war related deaths since the Revolutionary War (1,516,863 and 1,396,733 respectively).
Auto deaths since 1968:
Average of 45,000/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 2,160,000
Abortions since 1968:
Average of 1.2 million/year (roughly) over 48 years equals 57,600,000
So, now let’s compare the number of gun related deaths to auto related deaths and abortions since 1968:
643,137 or 42% more auto related deaths than gun related deaths
56,083,137 or 3,697% more abortions than gun related deaths
Based on the statistics I’ve just provided, maybe we need more automobile control not gun control. Is the hysteria over gun related deaths justified? For some reason, auto deaths are taken as matter of fact. I’m sure more people would be shocked if they could see just how gruesome auto accident deaths can be. Are auto related deaths less senseless than gun related deaths?
Of course no dyed-in-the-wool, politically correct, liberal, feminist would be incensed over all the abortion deaths that have occurred since 1968—the unborn fetuses, not the mothers. We’ve all seen videos of just how callous and insensitive the physicians and commandants in the abortion camps really are. No problem though, unborn fetuses are just so much tissue.
As we’ve seen, there are way more auto related deaths and abortions than there are gun related deaths or even war related deaths. Still, the Left’s righteous indignation is always directed towards guns and war.
President Obama is quick to point out that the United States is not a Christian nation but a nation of laws. Apparently he forgot about our immigration laws, since 2.5 million illegal immigrants have come to the United States on his watch.
Naturally, to be against illegal immigration is to be against all immigration, Not only that, if you speak out against illegal immigration you are labeled a racist and a xenophobe. Furthermore, if you dare to be against settling Syrian refugees in Europe or the United States you are labeled an Islamophobe. Don’t believe it, just ask Donald Trump. By the way, how do they know that Syrian refugees are Muslim? I thought we don’t profile or give religious tests to potential immigrants.
The mainstream press, political pundits, and politicians like to mock the notion of building a wall along the southern border with Mexico. It’s even more ludicrous for them to believe that Mexico will pay for (and probably even build) the wall. The notion of building a wall with Mexico to secure our southern border is frequently likened to the East Germans building the Berlin Wall in 1961. Is this a legitimate comparison? After all, we are building a wall between two different countries, we’re not trying to build a wall through the middle of Washington, D.C.
Blah, Blah, Blah. Do we have borders or don’t we? Does it make any difference if there are 11 million or 34 million illegals in the United States? Let’s assume that 1% of those 11 million could be criminal or terrorists; that would leave us with a small army of 110,000 able to carry out acts like the Kathryn Steinle murder or the Boston Marathon bombing. How many more will be added if President Obama gets his way and lets in another 85,000 from Syria next year?
The loud voices want us to believe that it’s impossible to just round up all 11 million or so illegal immigrants and deport them. That would be un-American and inhumane, after all “that’s not who we are.” I wonder if there would be any problem if the government decided to round up all the Christians in the United States. I bet you wouldn’t hear a peep.
Besides, would it have made any sense for the government to have allowed Japanese, German, or Italian nationals to immigrate to the United States during World War II? Of course not! You would need to have your head examined if you thought so.
But now, President Obama is okay with allowing thousands of immigrants from countries with active Jihadist movements into the United States. During many of his public lectures, Obama never fails to remind us that “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” Well, technically Obama is correct, we are not at war with Islam the religion but we are at war with Islam the political system whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. I’m sure that the average man on the street in America has no idea what the differences between these two concepts are but they had better learn…and soon.
What we need now is a new sheriff in town. As a matter of fact, I think there’s one on the horizon.