"Olympic Size" United Nations Billboard
|
|
This impressive display on I-15 in Orem, Utah, is the work of the Utah County John Birch Society members. Chapter members raised funds from Birchers across Utah for the project.
Global
Gun Controllers Surrender to U.S U.N.
Probes Gun Enthusiasts' Protest Ashcroft
Declares for Second Amendment Paul Harvey's comment on the Columbine High
School shootings: Global
Gun Controllers Surrender to U.S
07/24/01
07/05/01
Lawrence Auster
July 24, 2001
"This is not the end. This is the opening skirmish of a war."
NEWSMAX.COM:
Thus spoke
former U.S. Congressman Charles Pashayan after the conclusion of a grueling
two-week-long anti-gun conference in which America held out for its basic gun
rights against the entire world — and won.
At issue were two paragraphs in the non-binding Program of Action that the
United States team had said it would under no circumstances approve.
The first of these was the "non-state actors" clause, by which the
U.N. member nations would agree "to supply small arms and light weapons
only to governments, or to entities duly authorized by governments." The
Americans argued that this provision would stop the U.S. from giving military
assistance to freedom fighters, to people resisting genocide, or even to a
long-time ally such as Taiwan which is not formally recognized as a state.
America's other "redline" on which it said no compromise would be
accepted was an agreement "to seriously consider legal restrictions on
unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons." The
Americans viewed this language as a direct attack on the civilian possession of
firearms, particularly in light of the fact that many member states have openly
stated their desire to turn the non-binding agreement into a legal treaty.
The final spurt of negotiations went on until late last Thursday night, then
continued all day Friday and all through Friday night, with the delegates
meeting in and around Conference Room 4 of the General Assembly building.
According to Pashayan, who served as an at-large U.S. delegate, the showdown
came in the early hours of Saturday morning, when Canada proposed a watered-down
version of the non-state actors clause, "and our delegation did the wise
thing in rejecting that."
Looking for common ground
However, the U.S. was not exactly as isolated as it seemed at this
conference. As a European source told NewsMax: "A lot of countries, with
which the U.S. would otherwise prefer not to be associated on this issue, are
hiding behind the U.S. position on non-state actors. Some Arab countries, as
well as the Chinese and Russians, want to continue to sell arms to non-state
actors. But since the U.S. took the 'con' position on this clause, those
countries haven't had to say anything."
African countries in particular insisted on the non-state actors provision
because, as a Jamaican delegate told NewsMax, "They are suffering the most
from illicit arms." Some observers on the U.S. side suggested a more
cynical motive, however: that many of the African governments are dictatorships
that don't want anyone else to be in a position to challenge their power. In any
case, it cannot be denied that the world's most horrific violence in recent
years has occurred in Africa .
Asked what sort of compromise was conceivable given the stark differences on
the redlined paragraphs, a Slovenian delegate told NewsMax: "They're using
lawyer's language that I can't understand." "You mean they're
concocting subtle phrases that each side might interpret as it wishes?"
"Yes."
As the talks ground on through Friday, there were several abortive efforts to
find or invent such a non-existent middle ground. In mid-afternoon the anti-gun
forces offered a substitute for the civilian ownership clause from which the
word "ownership" had been removed. The U.S. rejected this and said
that the entire paragraph must be deleted. The conference's president, Camilo
Reyes of Colombia, then proposed moving the non-state actors clause into the
document's preamble where it would have less force. The Americans opposed this,
too.
As each effort to find a compromise failed, Reyes would direct the delegates
to less troublesome side issues that still needed to be resolved, such as
language relating to "national self-determination" which was a sore
point between Israel and the Arabs. The U.S. also made one significant
concession, agreeing to future conferences to continue the work begun at this
conference.
Nevertheless, by 4 o'clock Saturday morning the core controversies could be
evaded no longer. Several nations made impassioned pleas to the U.S. to accept
the two offending paragraphs. Once again, as Pashayan described it, the U.S.
stated politely but firmly that it could not yield on these issues, that it had
said from the beginning that it would not yield on them.
Canada then introduced compromise language to the effect that a nation
"has to bear special responsibility when it would send arms to non-state
actors." At this point, Pashayan said, the room "fell into a stunned
silence because the delegates realized that Canada was pushing the U.S. to the
brink. They knew that for the U.S. to say ‘No’ to such watered-down language
would make the U.S. really look bad." Canada made it even harder for the
U.S. to refuse its offer when it said that it would consent to the deletion of
the civilian ownership clause if the U.S. would accept the new language on
non-state actors. The U.S. still said no.
President Reyes then lambasted the U.S. as the only country that was being
obdurate. A break in the meeting was called.
During the break some members of the U.S. delegation said the U.S. should
hold firm, others said the U.S. should accede to Canada's compromise. The first
group replied that although the language was watered down there was some
ambiguity in it that could hamper any U.S. President in the future. Pashayan
then suggested that the U.S. delegation not do anything for the moment and see
what happened next. "I sensed that this body wanted to create a document
and the omission of these two things would not kill the document. The U.K. and
Canada and Brazil and even Africa were not about to walk out of this
conference."
When the conference reconvened a few minutes later, it became apparent that a
crucial change had occurred on the anti-gun side. The African countries that had
been the strongest advocates of the non-state actors clause—including
Mozambique, Sierra Leone and South Africa—announced that they would yield to
America's demand to delete the paragraph. With this dramatic declaration,
Western countries that had been particularly hard core against the U.S.
position, including Canada and Great Britain as well as the European Union, said
that they would follow the Africans' lead, based on the idea that the African
countries were the ones most affected by the illicit trade in small arms and
light weapons.
In a gracious statement to the Africans, chief U.S. delegate Donald M.
McConnell recognized that Africa was not abandoning its principle against
trading weapons to non-state actors, but added that the U.S. had its principles
too and hoped that Africans would respect them even though they didn't agree
with them.
After a few hours sleep, the delegates returned to the conference hall to
ratify the Program of Action. President Reyes asked if there were any remaining
objections. After a few moments of silence had elapsed, he declared that the
document was passed by consensus. There then followed a long series of speeches
in which delegates congratulated President Reyes and expressed their sorrow that
the document had not been much more far-reaching than it was.
Charles Pashayan told NewsMax: "It was magnificent to see the U.S. stand
up against these forces and not buckle under to what was international political
pressure, which was very formidable notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. is
the big boy on the block."
As for NewsMax's early warnings that the State Department officials on the
U.S. delegation might go for a compromise, Pashayan commented: "The people
from the State department would have been more inclined to compromise to produce
an agreement, that's their business. But they were prepared to follow the
directions coming from above to stick with the "redlines" and not go
along with watered down language."
However, he added, there will be continuing pressure to elevate this Program
of Action into a treaty, and also to bring back the issues of private ownership
and non-state actors. "All of this has to be understood as part of a
process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body
power over our domestic laws. That is why we must make sure there is nothing
express or implied that would give even the appearance of infringing on our Bill
of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment."
Lawrence Auster can be reached at lawrence.auster@att.net. U.N.
Probes Gun Enthusiasts' Protest
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United Nations is investigating whether irate
letters and e-mails it has received from American gun enthusiasts protesting an
upcoming conference on the illicit trade in small arms constitutes a security
threat. The world body has received about 100 complaints from Americans who
erroneously believe the conference seeks to infringe on their right to bear
arms, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Jayantha Dhanapala said
Thursday.
The gun-rights enthusiasts did not threaten physical harm to any U.N.
official but their protests were strongly worded and were turned over to U.N.
security experts, Dhanapala said.
"What concerned me was that there was a widespread campaign," he
said. "It's essentially a U.S.-based phenomenon."
The letters and e-mails started arriving in recent weeks, some signed and
some anonymous, alleging that the U.N. is attempting to take away guns from
people, in conflict with the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, Dhanapala
told a news conference.
"I did not get the impression that they have been orchestrated. They are
differently worded, but clearly they all labor under the same misapprehension
about the conference," he said.
Dhanapala's office released a pamphlet called "Setting the Record
Straight" to address the misconceptions they contained and explain what the
conference hopes to achieve.
"The focus of the conference is on illicit trade in small arms, not the
legal trade, manufacture or ownership of weapons," the pamphlet stressed.
"The U.N. conference will have no effect on the rights of civilians to
legally own and bear arms."
Delegates are expected to adopt a program of action, which is not legally
binding, to curb and ultimately eliminate illegal trafficking in assault rifles
and other small arms that have become the weapons of choice in many internal
conflicts around the world.
Asked about the fears of some Americans that the United Nations is trying to
take away their guns, Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed that the main goal
of the conference is to try to control the illicit arms trade "to ensure
that guns do not get into the wrong hands."
"When you look at the history of the last 20 years or so, most of the
killing in the world, apart from the AIDS epidemic, is being done by small
arms," he said.
About a dozen gun-rights groups, including the U.S. National Rifle
Association, are among the 177 non-governmental organizations accredited to
attend the two-week conference which begins Monday.
Dhanapala said these groups will be able to attend all public meetings and
will choose several representatives to make statements at one official
conference session.
U.N. conventional arms expert Joao Honwana, a top conference official, said
it wasn't up to the U.N. Department for Disarmament Affairs to judge whether the
e-mails and letters constituted a threat.
"The objective of turning these e-mail and communications to the U.N.
security was precisely to allow them to assess them from a perspective of threat
to the organization of the conference and take whatever necessary measures they
found appropriate, which is what they are doing," he said.
"They analyze those communications, and I'm sure that they will contact
with the appropriate institutions in this country and elsewhere to make sure
that whatever is said in those e-mails does not represent a major threat to the
organization of this conference," Honwana said.
Printable
text version | Mail
this to a friend Ashcroft
Declares for Second Amendment ournation note: This alert has been changed by removing several line
breaks to make it more web friendly, however the content has not been changed GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!! Chris W. Stark - Director Ph. 1-713-202-9548 Fax 1-810-283-7459 http://www.GOA-Texas.org 24 May 2001 +++++++++++++++++ Text of Ashcroft Letter - Ashcroft Declares For Second ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Copyright © 2001 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). To view our previous alert in reference to this Historic action, go to:
Las Vegas SUN main page
P.O. Box 1924
Crosby, Texas 77532-1924
email: Director@GOA-Texas.org
Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goa-texas.org/cgi-bin/alerts/mb.pl?PN=148
With Respect,
Chris W. Stark - Director
**************************
http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00027.html
By Neal Knox
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (May 20) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft put himself and George W. Bush's Justice Department solidly on the side of gunowners this week, firmly declaring it is "unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."
His stunning proclamation -- exactly opposite the position taken by Bill Clinton's Justice Department during the government's appeal of the still-pending Emerson case -- came in a May 17 letter to NRA-ILA Executive Director Jim Baker, from which Baker delightedly read at yesterday's Annual Meeting of NRA Members.
Ashcroft's letter could not have come at a more important time, for a vote on various gun amendments -- including some that both houses of Congress passed in 1999 -- could occur in the Senate at any time. The Attorney General's position could cause many Congressmen to reassess their votes.
Further, the Attorney General's statements that the Second Amendment is an individual right could influence the outcome of Emerson, in which Lubbock, Texas, Federal Judge Sam Cummings two years ago reached the same conclusion and blocked prosecution of Dr. Timothy Emerson for possessing a firearm while under a routine divorce restraining order.
The Clinton Justice Department immediately appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case last June and is expected to rule shortly. Most observers believe that unless the Circuit Court holds for Emerson on Fifth Amendment grounds the case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court -- where the Second Amendment would be argued by the Bush-appointed Solicitor General.
Ashcroft wrote: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted [the same] throughout the Bill of Rights.....
"Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers."
Ashcroft cites the Federalist Papers 46 and 29; Thomas Jefferson. who wrote: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms;" and George Mason, who said during Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Ashcroft pointed out that his view of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right "is not a novel position. In early decisions, the United States Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the Second Amendment applied to individuals. See, e.g., logan v. United States...(1892); Miller v. Texas ...(1893); Robertson v. Baldwin ...(1897); Maxwell v. Dow ... (1900).
"Justice Story embraced the same view in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution ... (1833). It is the view that was adopted by United States Attorney General Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the constitutionality of the first federal gun control statue, the National Firearms Act of 1934.
"As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act....
"Significantly, the individual rights view is embraced by the preponderance of legal scholarship on the subject, which, I note, includes articles by academics on both ends of the political spectrum. See, e.g., William Van Alstyne, 'The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms' ... (Duke Law Journal) (1994),
Akhil Reed Amar, 'The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment,' Yale L.J. ... (1992); Sanford Levinson, 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment,' Yale L.J. ... (1989), Don Kates, 'Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,' (Michigan Law Review) (1983).
"In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. I must respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn as Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment."
=====================BEGIN ASHCROFT LETTER=========================
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
May 17, 2001
Mr. James Jay Baker
Executive Director
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Dear Mr. Baker,
Thank you for your letter of April 10, 2001 regarding my views on the Second Amendment. While I cannot comment on any pending litigation, let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.
While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of "the people," which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted throughout the Bill of Rights. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (plurality opinion). Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (Madison); Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton); see also, Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1764 ("No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."; George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention 1788 ("I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.").
This is not a novel position. In early decisions, the United States Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the Second Amendment applied to individuals. See, e.g., logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 276 (1892); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1893); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900). Justice Story embraced the same view in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Sec. 1890, p. 746 (1833) It is the view that was adopted by United States Attorney General Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the constitutionality of the first federal gun control statue, the Nation Firearms Act of 1934. See The National Firearms Act of 1934: Hearings on H.R. 9066 Before the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong. 6, 13, 19 (1934). As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
See Pub. L. No. 99-308, Sec. 1(b) (1986). Significantly, the individual rights view is embraced by the preponderance of legal scholarship on the subject, which, I note, includes articles by academics on both ends of the political spectrum. See, e.g., William Van Alstyne, 'The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms', 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994), Akhil Reed Amar,
'The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment,' 101 Yale L.J. 1193 (1992); Sanford Levinson, 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment,' 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989), Don Kates, 'Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,' 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983).
In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes.(1) As I was reminded during my confirmation hearing, some hold a different view and would, in effect, read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. I must respectfully disagree with this view, for when I was sworn as Attorney General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John Ashcroft
Attorney General
==================
(1) Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater. As Samuel Adams explained at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, the proposed Constitution should "never [be] construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Reprinted in 2 B.
Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 675 (1971) (emphasis added).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Suggested annual dues?
As an opener, the price of a box of ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at:
http://www.goa-texas.org/members.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright © 2001 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). Republication
permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original
state. The views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of
any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance
(GOA-Texas). We do not officially represent Gun Owners of America.
Go to http://www.goa-texas.org/TXsig.htm for more information.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONLY THE E-MAIL ADDRESS USED TO SEND US A SUBSCRIBE REQUEST, CAN BE SUBSCRIBED. WE DO NOT SHARE, LEND, OR SELL OUR E-MAIL LIST FOR ANY REASON. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL WITH GOA-TEXAS.ORG.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
Gun_Owners_Alliance_Alert-on@wavehost.com
No subject line or message necessary.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO UN-SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
Gun_Owners_Alliance_Alert-off@wavehost.com
No subject line or message necessary.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: 'None Genuine Without This Signature'
iQEVAwUBOw0QQ2D+6n2ACEnVAQHJLAf9Eu8+QDF2X7/hQ+N67Wb2osVQ27JukySj
iyFoykEGFj1oM8x7PB5J3/YZnRs7zxkyCPSMQ/iG1ez8LrYarueDqs5ZV9BS/wIg
huldqiO70MRDVnfCHp0zX8TPSrDYdKUAtbpFmh5sZl5tVLTJoXz5GldcKZ3hMuUR
Pss3Ly55oNIM33hBwFD11nL3NhxnPpbevBvLm00Ja/cQhsEyZONF++fC9FEKiCAQ
S/2w8iAre3c/QwUzI5OO5lPSmQ9wtjmtAJymUlVYU2QSoAsGI9S5I46f+hQ35ogs
/i/MIgT2eFVTpSw5aOuu4V9OMdS00cAG2b9lRxjl13mWVAD6zLfMJQ==
=4KDu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Are you considering backing gun control laws???"
Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER THIS...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the
mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars.
The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. (editors note: The bad guys never gave up their guns.)
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."
It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your delegation.
Paul Harvey
Paul Harvey's comment on the Columbine High School shootings:
How can we blame it all on guns? For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, CO. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy.
Yeah, it must have been the guns.
It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time.
It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.
It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.
It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.
It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching them evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.
It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the President gets away with it.
Nah, it must have been the guns.
Paul Harvey