Our Nation is Paralyzed by the Fear of Violating the Second Amendment

   If we were to let the students vote on whether to have metal detectors, and armed officers, and all other questions regarding school safety at their schools, it would belie the fact they still would be able to make the one decision many of  them want to make.
   Whether to ban guns, at least assault-type weapons.
That, it would appear, cannot be their decision.
But, should it be ours? Should we, the adults, be deciding whether to ban guns? Or, is it a Constitutional question, one beyond not only the reach of kids, but beyond our reach as well?
   What is written is what is written (meaning the Constitution) and is too sacrosanct to be messed with?
The shifting sands of society create surprises. One would not have thought there would be such wide-spread acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now, the Second Amendment? It has been sacrosanct. Is that day nearing an end?
   I judge that for the moment, it remains sacrosanct. How long that remain, I do not know. But, we are frozen, as a nation, on what to do on guns, and it might be that the reason we are frozen is because we fear going against the Second Amendment.
   Think of the protests. In them is pressure. Think of the outcry for change, the demand to do something.
   And, yet nothing, The best we've done is a little movement on bump stocks. Meaningful legislation? None.
School shootings sprouting up everywhere, a national outcry to do something about them, and yet our nation's leaders can come up with no solutions. And, I will tell you why (or, at least I wonder if this is why): If they come up with anything at all, it will be considered gun control. We have it in our heads that any rules we make on guns means we are are adopting gun control and gun control is forbidden by the inspired document known as the Constitution.
   No matter that we already have metal detectors at airports and they are a huge success. We cannot have them in our schools because that would be gun control. For the moment, we are more frozen by our fear of violating the Second Amendment than we ever have been. We already have background checks, but we will not expand them to provide that even those buying privately and at gun  shows must be checked. No, for the moment, we are too frozen to do that.
  Perhaps the reason we are frozen is because there is a connection. Our champions of the Second Amendment see the students and others protesting, and can see where the path is leading and know the day could come when guns might be outlawed.
   They see a slippery slope. They fear that if they allow give in to any gun control at all, the dam will give way, and soon, guns will be outlawed.  They see the connection between giving a little and losing a lot -- losing even everything.

Let the Kids have the Vote on School Protection

   Are there times when kids have earned the right to be the decision-makers? Take the school shootings: They've protested  They've carried their concerns out into the streets. They've gotten behind megaphones and screamed their little hearts out.
  They've suggested something needs to be done. Now.
   So, let them do it. Let them take the action. Let communities nationwide decide if the students in their schools will make the choices.
   Metal detectors? If the students want them, give them to them.
   Arming the teachers and staff? Let the students decide.
   Armed resource officers? Invite the city police in for regular patrols? Have gun-totting community volunteers take shifts? Involve veterans? Let the students decide most everything about what the schools will do.
   Everything except maybe one thing, and I wouldn't let the students go there. I wouldn't let them touch one decison. I don't think we can let them decide whether they, themselves, should carry. No way. Just my thought, and there might be those who disagree, but I don't think it safe to have students pack.
   Which makes me reflect. If we can see it would be a major catastrophe if we let 17-year-olds march around in in mass in public with weapons, doesn't that suggest it is also unsafe to have too many adults doing the same? Children grow up, yes, but there are always some who hang on to such tendencies.

Let the Children Decide Whether They will have Metal Detectors

   There are times you should let children vote. I do not know if you draw a line at 14 or 16 or if you let everyone of them vote, but I do wonder if there is a matter before us for which the children should be the decision-makers.
  Metal detectors.
  Even if we can see that metal detectors would make a difference -- even if it is evident that if most all schools had them, there would be fewer school shootings -- should we force them on the schools. After all, having metal detectors does seem the wise thing to do. Sometimes, though, what you do should not be so much a matter of what is wise, but of what is preferred.
   A matter of choice, a matter of preference.
   It is the students who are being affected. It is they who are at risk, and they who -- if we had more metal detectors -- must live with them. Every time they entered the building or school yard (depending on where the metal detector were placed) they would face the hassle of clearing through the metal detector.
   Some students might think they'd become prisoners in their own schools.
   So, let each school decide. Perhaps the school administrators make the decision, perhaps the parents do   -- and perhaps some schools would let the students, themselves, cast the votes on whether to have the metal detectors.
  Think of all the activism of students since the Parkland shooting. There is cause to suggest they, themselves, should make this decision.

You cannot Suppose to Own the Blue Skies of Heaven

Says a friend on Facebook:
   I don’t believe a person has an inalienable right to trespass on another person’s property. When you cross a country’s border without permission then you are essentially trespassing.

I reply:
   That supposes ownership. I don't know that in a land of the free, anyone owns the country, just the same as no one is the king of this land. You cannot take the blue skies of heaven and suppose to own them. You can live under them, but that does not make them yours. God's green earth belongs to everyone.

Further thoughts I have:
   I consider on the opinion I just offered. I think of Israel, and wonder about it being a land for Jews, and whether restrictions on others should be allowed. So, the opinion I offer above is one I continue to consider. I also do -- in fact -- give thought to the ownership of America being a right of those who are already here at the exclusion of those who seek to come. Perhaps I will think on this as I go to bed. 
   

Is Freedom to Move from One Country to Another a Right?

  If we were to list all the inalienable rights we suppose the founding fathers were referring to when they adopted the Declaration of Independence, the right to move about freely would be one of them. Indeed, back then there were no restrictions against moving to America. Can someone tell me if there were restraints on moving to England, or to France or to Germany? Back then, freedom of movement from one country to another was considered a natural right -- at least in the 13 colonies -- and I would not be surprised if elsewhere.

Does Truth Mean there are Political Truths?

   Does truth mean there are political truths? Does the fact that truth exists mean there are going to be truths in the world of politics and social issues?
   It would certainly seem so.
   And, what then of the thought that we should  seek the truth of all things? All things includes politics. The social issues of our day are important. If there are truths to be had, are they not, then, important?
   What I am saying is, that while it is wonderful that each person be allowed their opinion, there are times when only one side is right.
   What then of the scripture, suggesting that by the spirit, we might know the truth of all things? Does it leave out political matters? Does it exclude us learning the truth when social issues are the matters at hand?
   Of course not. If God inspires mankind, he can inspire on public issues.
   Which means this: When we have political opinions, they can -- at least sometimes -- be right or wrong. And, they can be inspired; It is possible to get your answers through inspiration.
  You and I are not anointed prophets. We are not always going to be inspired. We might be inspired on one issue and think we are inspired on another issue and actually be far off the mark. That does not mean inspiration does not exist. What it might mean, though, is that we sometimes follow the rules for receiving inspiration, and other times we fail to do so.
  One of the principles is to think. Oliver Cowdery was told he should not just ask the Lord, but should first study the matter out in his mind. Inspiration comes when the mind is doing its thinking. Another principle is to have an open mind. You cannot be inspired if you are not open to the truth. And, a principle related to the above two is to be in search mode. If you are not searching for the truth, why should you expect to find it? And, lastly, related to being open-minded, you should be open to God's will.

We are not a Dictatorship, but Forcing Patriotism isn't a Good Thing

  It has always been at odds with what our country stands for to force patriotism. In a communist country, you might be forced to be allegiant, but not in America.
   As much as anything, this compelled allegiance to state is what sets the dictatorships apart from free countries. I think of Germany long ago, and of Cuba, and of the old Soviet Union -- places where allegiance was forced.
   As much as anything, requiring obeisance is what those countries are all about. Iran? Is it any different there? Forced loyalty is the mark of a dictatorship.
  So, we should be thoughtful and concerned with what happened in the United States this past week. The freedom to express oneself against the government was infringed upon. Football players were told, in essence, that acts seen as not being patriotic would not be allowed. If they show such lack of patriotism, they will be fined.
   (I think it worthy to pause, to note that those who have kneeled during the National Anthem, are almost without exception, people who do love America, and do give it homage, and do respect the sacrifice of our soldiers. It is we who judge them otherwise. It is we who judge them as doing something unpatriotic. It is we who demand that they follow our rules for their patriotism.)
   Forcing patriotism upon a people is not the mark of a free country, and that we have reached this point should be a concern.
   You might suggest it is not the government that is forcing the players to stand during the National Anthem, but a private entity (the NFL). What is being done is still wrong. Also, consider that the nation's highest official both called for action against the players and lauded it when it came. The president of the country is standing both behind the move and in front of it.
   No, we are not a dictatorship. The move by the NFL has not landed us there. But, we should be concerned about taking on the trimmings of a dictatorship. We should be concerned we are compelling patriotism, even as a dictatorship does.

(Note: The suggestion that forcing loyalty is something a communist country would do is not an original observation, as I heard it on Jay Macfarland's KSL Radio show.)