We would do the young victims of the Newtown shootings no honor by frantically enacting futile restrictions on freedom.
It may be satisfying to “do something.” But two things ought to be kept in mind. First, liberty is never more in peril than when politicians sense that the people want them to do something — anything. Second, a false sense of security is worse than no security at all.
If it’s so dangerous to identify homes that are “gun-free” zones, why do we do it to our schools? Unlike private residences, a criminal can actually bank on a school being gun free and thus soft-target rich. And we not only ensure this is the case, we, incredibly, announce it to the world.
The gospel of Matthew (26:52) tells us that Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, “Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Quite a pacifist message, huh? Yet Peter only had a sword to draw because he had one on his person — and Jesus obviously took no issue with this.
When I was growing up, an older member of the family used to say, "What you don't know would make a big book." Now that I am an older member of the family, I would say to anyone, "What you don't know would fill more books than the Encyclopedia Britannica."
In the 1960s the government threw more money and legislation at the nation's reading problem, but the reading skills of students continued to plummet. The deliberate dumbing down of America has continued to this day.
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence.
Progressive educators such as John Dewey implemented their whole-word reading method into schools in the early 20th century. While this reading method was detrimental to the reading ability of millions of Americans, it was allowed to remain the primary method of reading instruction becasue the progressives controlled the teacher's colleges and the "official" publications on reading instruction.