Constitutional Rights?

In light of the recent murders of teachers and innocent children in Connecticut, many politicians, talking heads and celebrities have voiced a desire for increased gun control laws.

Last week our local newspaper ran and editorial in which they said; "No civilian should have a military-style weapon capable of firing off dozens of rounds of bullets without reloading. Fortunately, in the Sandy Hook case, police arrived quickly. With hundreds of rounds of ammunition, it’s conceivable that Lanza would have kept killing. No one needs that kind of firepower to hunt deer or shoot turkeys."

I have experience firing weapons in the military, but am not a hunter. I am NOT a member of the NRA and I'm not a weapons collector. However, I have rarely heard more ignorant statements than those I've heard in the past few weeks.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's it. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about shooting turkeys or targets. Nothing about protecting oneself from burglars.

Some say; we have a well regulated militia. Therefore, we have no need for military-style weapons. To that I would say; if/when the government decides to confiscate your property for whatever reason, they will not do it with pistols. They will come with maximum firepower. How will you defend yourself against that if we further restrict our existing rights? 

Beyond the issue of existing laws, nobody (except the NRA President) is talking about the possibility of arming people at schools. I have no idea if that is a reasonable option, but I do think that when a bad guy with a gun is met by a good guy with a gun, the chances of mass killings are much less. Additionally, when people contemplate carrying out such horrific acts, I can't help wondering if they are less likely to attempt the act if they know their chances of carrying out the act are extremely slim?

In the end, it appears to me the people we normally look to for enlightened, educated and intelligent decisions and advice don't even care what the primary governing documents say.

Tell me what you think.

What's Wrong With Church?

I have been pondering for some time, the struggles many churches have with attracting and retaining members. See what you think of this opinion.

Years ago (and I'm talking 100-200 years), the church was a central meeting point in many communities. In many cases the church housed a school. Also, due to the fact that much of the US economy was agriculturally based, the church was a place many people went to meet with their friends, neighbors and relatives. Therefore, people had very deep roots in their community churches.

Fast-forward to the 1980's. The US economy became more heavily weighted toward business, office jobs, technology and people embraced more readily, the concept of relocating away from their families.  Suddenly we were spending long hours at work, shuttling our kids from school, to gymnastics, dance, music and other activities. People's roots in the church were becoming shallow.

Fast-forward again to 2012. We now have entire communities online. We often-times associate w/online friends more than we do in person. So-called community churches are thriving while traditional churches are trying to figure out how to grow their congregations.

So what is missing? To me it is the sense of community. These newer "community churches" are seldom affiliated with any national church. They may offer a message (the word of God), but without all the pomp and ceremony of the more established churches. They may or may not have programs in place for youth or small groups. Many people say these newer churches are shallow in themselves because they offer nothing beyond a once-a-week service. But many DO offer programs that don't cost a lot of money (e.g. small group bible study) or have daycare centers operating on-site during the week that are profit-making and help support the costs of operating the church.

In order to have a sense of community, people have to invest in their community. Whether it be financially, physically or otherwise, we must open ourselves up to being accepted into the community. Usually the community is already willing to accept us.

As well, many of the well-established "mainstream" churches have become more of a business for the national and local levels, the clergy AND the local church leadership. Think I'm wrong? Tell your Preacher you have to cut their salary. See what happens. Tell the national organization you disagree with some new policy and see what happens. Look at the many people who think that because they donated the new organ, piano or building, they have the right to dictate how it is used. The fact that these newer churches operate with significantly lower overhead cannot be overlooked.

Equally as important is parishioners or congregants who don't think they need to pony up the money or pitch in physically or administratively. Every church seems to have a core group of people who donate money, time and/or talent. Often this group is accused (quietly over lunch and out of earshot) of doing things their own way. Nevermind the accusers often haven't offered to help. Our community is OUR responsibility. The more of us involved, the more of us will understand how and why certain decisions are made. AND the more of us involved, the more ideas we can pull from and if there's a better idea, it has a better chance of being implemented.

In the end, I believe the "organized churches" in America need to return to a sense of community. There may be significant changes these national organizations must make. If they fail to make those changes, it won't end the church today, next week or even next year. But rest assured there will be a slow decline (some say it has already started) which will have the same result...barring Divine Intervention.