I Hate To Post This Today, But Regarding The Newtown, Connecticut Shooting

**Disclaimers**
1. I didn't want to post this because I feel like I'm on some level furthering my idea using the current of the dreadful loss in Connecticut today (thereby making myself a hypocrite) My apologies to everyone, most especially the families of Newtown, Connecticut.
2. I am not getting into what we should do about guns in this nation. I'm just trying to shed some light on what happens when we argue about that topic, most especially when people use a recent tragedy such as this as an opportunity to voice their position on a hotly debated political issue.

I suppose now I will begin...

It's not about the guns themselves. Guns are just a fact. What bothers me is that we're trying to turn this into an argument against another group's views on gun control. We haven't gotten there yet, and we need to be patient. The nation is faced with an open wound. When you are wounded, your priorities are to treat the affected area, take care of it, and do whatever it can to help it heal on its own; retribution and conflict, as they are not vital, are at best secondary.

To dispel this notion, I haven't heard a single person who advocates removing the 2nd amendment. But what I have heard is countless people very vocal about defending it. Why be so defensive if there isn't opposition?

So let's consider the following then: We have an under-addressed issue in this nation with mental health. We haven't effectively been giving people with mental health issues the help they need, not only to prevent situations like this, but to help people suffering from mental health issues to live better lives. Guns, as I said are a fact. They're there. We have an indiscriminate set of people carrying guns whereas at the same time people on all sides of the argument would agree that there are some conditions under which it would be irresponsible to give someone a gun. This may include people with criminal intentions, people facing severe emotional hardships, pretty much anyone whose mental/emotional state is compromised by whatever personal factor that individual is facing to the extent that it negatively impacts their standing as a social being. Be ye conservative or liberal, there are invariably some people and some situations that would call you to say "Please, put the gun down"; if not, you are welcome to ignore the rest of this text as this may not apply to you.

Now I understand that those who don't advocate stricter gun control laws are looking out for the safety of those who would otherwise be defenseless. THE SAME WAY that people who do advocate stricter gun control laws are looking out for the safety of those who would otherwise be defenseless. These two notions only differ because they are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT perceptions on the idea of "defense", BOTH OF WHICH are legitimate claims.
One argues that you wouldn't have a problem if you removed the common element. The other argues that you equalize the playing field if you make the element more common. So for an analogy, which of the following is the bad idea?: Removing a poison so that no one can drink it by mistake? Or increasing the contact so that the population builds an immunity so that they are in less danger should someone try to use it against them. Neither approach is perfect, both are still legitimate, and either way you're alive (most of the time). Now the only thing you have to address is who you have handling this poison, and in what frame of mind are they.

We have the tendency to allow our own perception of the world we see before us to so enthralled us that we find it difficult, painful, and frightening to step outside of it. Unfortunately, this breeds a lot of contempt... or, worse still, dismissal of people who also we do not yet realize share our same dreams and ambitions. Removed from the issues that appear to us as if they are the reality of the situation, we can see that the gun control arguments aren't about the guns themselves and should not be. That what we bypass when we even address this tragedy is the disturbing increase in mental health related violent acts. And that who we harm by not considering first are those whose lives were lost, and those whose lives have been ruined forever by a collective inattentive spirit. May they rest in peace, may God bless them all, and may those who remain with us feel from us as much love as they have lost today.

The ONLY Thing I'm Going To Say Regarding This Chick-Fil-A Ruckus

Forgive me if this doesn't make sense, because I am not very politically inclined:

Ok, I'm really, REALLY tired of hearing about Chick-Fil-A. Their views are not new. At all. Sooo many people have missed the point, and somehow it's becoming a political issue. Now there's conflict, A NATION DIVIDED, without any sort of understanding (or attempt to do so). Dialogue becomes a shouting match. Massive amounts of political energy and momentum is pouring into this, and away from conflicts that deserve it more; that need it more.

And to my Christian brothers and sisters who feel like our faith is under attack; no; Please, no; sincerely, I beg. I doubt highly that God is even remotely interested in animosity we have created with each other, centered around a fast food restaurant. That's pretty much that only thing anyone can say on God's behalf. In fact this whole debate at its root has very little to do with God, but here we are again fighting blindly, as we've done for far too long. Also, the Bible is not a weapon to be used against the neighbor that God called on us to love. The Bible is only to strengthen the spirit with the word of God.

I do have a favor to ask to those who feel, or have felt offended by Christianity as well. Believe as you will. As a Christian I will not judge you because that is not what I've been called to do. I do ask though that if you have a problem with a Christian, please do not make it into "the problem you have with Christians". There is so much division even within our system of beliefs that some of us are marginalized in the process. If I were to dislike an individual who happens to be gay, I'm never going to say "I dislike gay people". I'd probably say, "What a jackass this individual turned out to be", and leave the issue with them as I disassociate myself with that particular jackass. This same logic can be applied to everyone, of any perceived race, creed, or ideology. Only cooperation and understanding can be universalized, not hate. This is a Kantian notion.

And it's not a first amendment issue either. I can understand why you would think so, but hear me out. The CEO of a fast food restaurant (as well as anyone else on Earth) can believe as they wish. No one is arguing that. However, if you would notice, the notion that people are protesting against beliefs is flashed EVERYWHERE as if it were the central issue. Speaking as objectively as I can, and from my understanding of the situation, people are putting in their resistant efforts to address that they don't agree with actions. That's it. Both conflicting sides are using their first amendment rights. The first amendment is not under attack. It is alive and well, and you can settle those fears with your loyalty and patriotism intact.

A lot of rubbish is being flung at you. Take a moment to settle the storm, and instead of seeing the manifestations you will discover the inner intricacies. I call upon you to do this so that we can MOVE PAST THIS! Every time a new delicate issue occurs in the world that could be addressed faster with civilian pressure, political attention is internalized and dispersed by drawing focus to lesser issues like this. Why not talk to each other, and find out why this issue concerns those with whom you do not agree? You may find that the argument is really quite simple, and you can respect each other enough to stand stronger and more proudly as a more united nation.