Equality

My apologies for going off the grid for a few months. Now that I have taken the Texas Bar Exam (still awaiting results) and have graduated from law school, I seem to find a few minutes extra on my hands. Thanks to my readers for following and for your patience.

I have begun to cringe at a few certain buzz words that pervade society. Such words are "justice," "diversity," "tolerance," and "equality." These words used to be more pure and have a genuine meaning, but I fear that they have been misused to the point that they now represent words to compel a result or induce someone to be ok with a concept.

So, today's word, ladies and gentlemen, is "equality", brought to you by the letter E! In my mind, equality used to simply refer to pure concepts: God created all mean equal (Declaration of Independence), "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Today, my heart is saddened when the word "equality" is used as a trump card to justify actions that are contrary to what our gut tells us something isn't right per se. These words are used today to suggest that these are noble endeavors. The most prominent twisted example I can give is when our government plays the role of redistributing wealth or money. (My discussion today isn't meant to be exclusive.)

Let's be clear -- do I think that we should be equal, according to the eyes of God? Yes. Is that possible? Probably not; I think that full equality is something only God can control. Do I believe that people should be left to fend for themselves without any help from others? No way. Here is my quarrel: Whose job is it to be the enforcer of equality? (Let's also note that "equality" encompasses a much broader notion than simply economics or finances.)

Generally speaking, why can't we just issue scholarships based on merit (high school GPA and standardized test scores)? And sure, let's give a little latitude to financial need. I don't agree that race, sex, national origin or religion is sometimes considered in order to meet a quota.

Let's propose a hypothetical: Bob has two degrees and is a fairly capable person. He can walk, lift heavy-ish things, think, write, and communicate. Let's say that Bob chooses not to use the skills that God gave him and chooses not to find work -- it's just too hard; Bob has applied at three firms, but none have responded affirmatively, so Bob is giving up. Bob sits at home and, with a feeling of entitlement, awaits his check from Uncle Sam. After all, they owe him because he shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. And look at ole' Richie Rich over there with his $200,000 a year income. Why should that guy be earning as much as he is, while Bob doesn't have a job? Despite what Obama thinks, Richie built his company on his own, taking out loan after loan, repaying each through many months, and working restless 80-hour work weeks for 8 years. Richie did this while supporting a wife and three children, and has just now started taking his cut/earnings from his company due to the fact that his company is just now beginning to turn quarterly profits. Moreover, he has a few dollars invested in hopes of someday helping his kids pay for college.

Sure, the above situations are a bit extreme, and the general populous most likely doesn't fit the mold. Some do. And sometimes, these stories happen. But for purposes of "equality," why would it make sense for Richie to have the government strip a percentage of his income that could potentially pay for his kids' college education and redistribute it to Bob, thereby rewarding him for giving up and excusing him from paying income taxes? The government, in this scenario, punishes Richie for his hard work and for supporting his family and thinking of his family's future financial stability, in hopes that his kids don't have to incur the same hardships that he does. What boggles my mind is that some folks support this notion! And they further think that it's the government's job to play "income arbiter" and redistribute money based on a limited number represented by earnings or income. Where is the relief for those truly in need?

Sure, I might be limited in my perspective -- limited by my age and lack of experience. I haven't seen the full inner workings of the IRS. But I have had experience in paying taxes (and being taxed out the whazoo because I attempt to save a few bucks for the future. Apparently, that's a mistake for tax liability purposes). Further, I've heard the stories of friends and connections who have made sure that they pay for health insurance, but have been denied critical shots and medication because they were insured (yes, Obamacare made it impossible for the private clinics, most of which are the only healthcare providers in small Texas counties, to provide such shots to those who were insured). That's also a true story. I've engaged in numerous discussions about other folks' involvement in this messy web. And the more I hear, the deeper that rabbit hole goes and the more I disfavor government intervention into this area.

It SHOULD NOT be the government's job to forcibly redistribute people's earnings (and savings), much less anyone else's job to do so. The task involves peeking into people's private lives, speculating and scrutinizing earnings, evaluating many different degrees and levels of need (such as "does Bob really need this money to support himself, or can he really do something about it if he tried?"), sticking fingers into people's bank accounts, and ultimately becoming an arbiter of the populous on a personal level. There is no way to achieve true fairness or efficiency in this. Absolutely not. I'm not talking about theory - I'm speaking in terms of actuality. And if you think there is, get real. I'm sure some of you have had moments of discontent in this area.

So, if Mighty Uncle Sam doesn't do this as well as you'd like, Cody, whose job is it to try and achieve equality? Here is an idea: How about the Church? I'll explain more in a moment, but from what I've seen, the more and more dependent people grow on government, the less they depend (or have the opportunity to depend) on the Church. See, the Bible calls us to benevolence: "Each must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7. "Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8. (And there are many more verses in which God commands us to give.) Here is my point: it is not truly "benevolence" when you are forced to give to the U.S., knowing that they will inefficiently misallocate the revenue. Sure, some masochists ;-) might be happy to do so, and that's fine, but I have trouble seeing it as doing something out of love on a more personal level, because with those commands to give, I feel that God wants us to develop personal relationships with others. Can you be happy paying taxes? Sure, but while paying taxes is certainly something we should do, it doesn't hit the nail on the head. But the Church is better positioned to care for people.

Up-Sides to church/private intervention: (1) The Church, when gathering collection from its members, won't be in effect punishing those with a higher income by requiring a certain percentage of contribution. (2) The Church can better address those in true need. This means that they won't merely supply welfare checks or food stamps. Instead, the Church has the power to build homes, dig wells, supply food and clothing, give financial advice, develop personal relationships, and more -- all things that the government doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well or provide a direct benefit to people on a personal level. This leads to (#3): Efficiency -- more efficient allocation of goods and services in relation to the basis of need. If you don't agree with me on this point, take a look at and compare the financial statuses of Parkland Hospital, a guv'mint hospital vs. The Texas Scottish Rite, a private institution backed by the Masons, who is just now beginning to bill insurance companies after more than 100 years of existence (see hyperlink). By the way, one of the two is having to cut back almost to the point of closure (hint: it's not the private entity).

Parkland's financials: http://www.


parklandhospital.com/whoweare/

pdf/AR_financials.pdf vs. Scottish Rite's tax return: http://www.
dallasscottishrite.org/downloads/2010%20Tax%20Returns%20DSR%20Bodies.pdf

Parkland is spending more than they are getting. (Note: whether or not they have to is not in discussion here.) Scottish Rite had an additional $54,000 they could have spent in 2010, yet they chose not to. Novel concept.


Down-Sides to church intervention: (1) Not everyone is comfortable with churches or the roles that they currently play. It would likely be tough for those to turn to the church in times of need. No blame imparted there, although I strongly encourage reconsideration, based on the above points. (2) This idea of "benevolence" - it gives humanity a very wide credit of trust and hope. (uh oh...buzz words!) A trust that folks can open their pocket books to give to the point that it meets the need. So is it a false or fruitless sense of hope in humanity? It's debatable. I'm not 100% sold. But think about how much more we would have available to toss in the church fund if we weren't coughing up roughly 28% to Uncle Sam. Now am I suggesting a complete cut-off of taxes? No way. That would be utterly foolish. And besides, what would we have to debate? ;-) Taxes are necessary, and I'm an advocate for flat tax (along the lines of achieving true "equality"), but that is also of a different, hairy discussion.

Equality is a much better goal for the Church and is not fit for the government. As I promised to continue earlier, I hope you'll stop to take notice that dependence on government and church/faith/religion/God, in general, are antithetical trade-offs -- more dependence on the U.S. to provide for our needs means "why do we need the church, or the body of our Christian brotherhood, to take care of us when we have Uncle Sam? Perhaps a goal of Obama's? Such a dependence kick-started the downfall of Cuba in the 1950s. Castro and his regime got the citizens to trade their dependence on religion and faith for a dependence on the Cuban gov't to take care of them. Worked out well (*facetious statement there). Alternatively, more dependence on Christ makes us realize that Christ gives us so much more, both now and eternally, than any government or political party could even promise or deliver.

To close out, I leave you with food for thought:

Rick Santorum and Contraception

I like Rick Santorum, and I'm voting for him in this election. It's only my personal belief. I just think that Santorum has his priorities right - focus on social issues first and economic policies after that. "Ultimately," said Santorum at a local rally I attended recently, "America's identity boils down to its rights. It is these rights that distinguish America from the rest of the world, and we must fight together to protect those rights. If we lose our inalienable rights, we have lost our identity." Couldn't agree more. In the big picture, our identity is not based on the amount of dollars our country has (or doesn't have) in its pocket.

Sadly, many are deterred from Santorum based on a misperception that once in office, he will regulate, and perhaps ban, contraceptions (or birth control). I hope you're not one of the people that have bought into this idea. Where do these people come up with that idea? I bet they have been duped by believing the media (oh boy, there's a can of worms). Liberal media wants to present this as an issue to deter folks from voting for this conservative candidate.

Let's not be fooled. Check out his statement on CNN (The Communist News Network, haha). He states that birth control should be available. And check out his voting record. Where has he voted to regulate contraception? Pray tell.

To clarify, abortion is an entirely separate issue from contraception. I can't say that he personally believes the two are different, but he has made it very clear that his personal beliefs are not, and should not be, imposed on the rest of society. God bless him for that. It is true that Santorum consistently votes pro-life (anti-abortion). God bless him for that, too.

And that's the #1 reason I like Santorum. He defers to God's instruction when deciding his stance on issues. I will never vote for a candidate who takes the position that it is acceptable to willingly take the life of an innocent child without danger to both the child and mother's health. That is inconsistent with my view of God's will.

A Christian Lawyer in a Not-So-Christian World

I'm in my last semester of law school. Lord willing, and through His power and sustenance, I will be a licensed, practicing attorney in seven months. I just took the Professional Responsibility exam and will be sitting for the Bar Exam in July. If you feel compelled, lifting a prayer in my direction is certainly appreciated. That such a great responsibility is about to be thrown on my shoulders in short time is slightly scary. Nevertheless, this isn't about me; this is 100% about God using me in a way that will accomplish His will and His purposes.

So, in case you were dying to know why lawyers are such crooks, I have been noting (although, not well) some of the inconsistencies in the practice of law and the practice of following Christ. As a disclaimer, some will say that the two codes are indeed consistent; however, these are my personal notes and observations. I wouldn't say they directly clash, but there are noteworthy nuances.

1. Lawyers don't lend money to clients.
I am almost certain that the money the restriction speaks of is client funds (particularly, funds in holding) and not personal funds. The goal is that attorneys' judgment calls aren't to be affected by ulterior motives, such as gaining your loaned money back. That seems fair, but I can't help but recall that Jesus tells us, in the Sermon on the Mount, to give to the man that asks. And if someone sues you, give him not just your cloak, but your tunic also. And I don't see an exception. (See Matthew 5:38-42)

2. Generally, lawyers don't have a duty to do the best thing, only the acceptable thing.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are written to be a floor, or standard, that an attorney cannot fall below in conduct. They (soon to be "we") are permitted to go above and beyond the call, but the rules are what are noted as acceptable. But does Jesus call us to be merely acceptable, or are we called to be the best we can possibly be? (Note Matthew 5:43-48). Again, this is not necessarily inconsistent per se, as attorney rules allow for better-than-minimal acts.

3. Attorneys are always working in ways that will protect themselves.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing; indeed, it's a smart thing to do. But I think it's sad that lawyers have to be constantly looking over their shoulders in preparing work. They are fearful that clients will turn around and sue for malpractice. Note: It is fairly difficult to prove and win a malpractice suit against an attorney. Moreover, as I noted, malpractice is most often due to an act that fell below that "floor." I just think that in such an environment of self-protection and "C.Y.A.", it would be easy to get caught up in and focus more on selfish endeavors to protect myself. It should be absolutely important to put the client's interests ahead of the attorney's.

There are more things to note, but I won't get into nitty-gritty rules of attorney conduct and practice. That might put you to sleep. As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for your support. I can't wait to finally finish law school.

Jesus > Imperfect People

6.6 million hits on YouTube. Over 60,000 comments under the link, with many more circulating among social websites and pervading conversations. I'm talking about the recent video "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus". If you choose to watch it, I strongly recommend putting on your critical thinking cap, and take captive in your minds every claim that is made. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&feature=g-logo&context=G2474ba1FOAAAAAAABAA

This post is intended to relay my thoughts and comments on the video. I'll say up front that I dislike it; it was something I couldn't bring myself to finish while watching the first time through. But, as encouraged by friends, I'm going to remain positive, such as making statements like this: I think that 99% of the video's caption, standing by itself, is great stuff. The problem, however, is the spoken word. My challenge: to include Scripture as my bases for objections.

Here is what I find convincing and true about the video (POSITIVES):
(1) Religion itself was never meant to be about self-righteousness or about following a set of rules. Jesus did indeed bust people's chops for doing so.
(2) That's how we, as imperfect people, have perverted something that God set forth as holy. We have let our bone-headed mistakes discourage others from wanting to be a part of the Family. I call these "church owies". It's reality, and it deeply saddens me. And if you are reading this and have become a product of one of these owies, I apologize to you for whatever it was. But I strongly encourage you not to allow what imperfect men have done to taint your image of what God has set forth. We'll talk about that in a minute.
(3) Church is not meant to be a place where people come to have all the mistakes they did Monday through Saturday cleansed so they can repeat the same mistakes again the next week. Nor is it meant to be a museum of the pious and perfect. It is, indeed, a gathering where Christ-followers come to seek edification from brothers and sisters who, in all likelihood, find themselves making the same mistakes you do.
(4) Yes, the family of believers has hypocrites, and it's a shame.

On the other hand, these statements are where I take issue with the spoken message (OBJECTIONS):
Before I start, I want you to do two things: (a) Define for yourself what "religion" is. The way the video uses it, I think, has to do with organized bodies of believers. Personally, I feel that it is critical to make the distinction that "religion" is a set of beliefs and the actions carried out in support or response, while people are a different subject. Religion is inanimate; people do the acting. (b) Secondly, I want you to put on your thinking caps and make decisions for yourselves. 1 Corinthians 14:20 says "in your thinking, be mature."
(1) This guy makes tons of claims about Jesus. Where is His scriptural support? I know it's meant to be a poem, but putting Jesus' life and mission into words is something that is never meant to be taken lightly. Thus, it needs absolute backing from the Bible. I didn't hear a single Biblical support. Again, I'm going to try to avoid being hypocritical whenever I possibly can, so I'll try my best to cite.
(2) Fallacy #1 (even though this is point #2): the claim that "Jesus came to abolish religion". This claim is not only completely irrational, but not scripturally supported. Objection: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but fulfill." Appealing to logic, why would Jesus come to destroy what His Father set up (note the temples where people gathered in the Old Testament)? Or why, then, did Jesus send apostles out to different cities?
(3) Fallacy #2: Claim: "If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars? Why does it build huge churches, but fail to feed the poor?" Objection based on logic: Again religion is inanimate. It cannot by itself do anything. People start wars, based on imperfect qualities about them. It is people's jobs to feed others; an inanimate object cannot do so. That's about as rational as saying "Guns kill people; people don't kill people." Or "I didn't hit you with my car; my car hit you." Or "you can't get mad at me; I didn't say those words - it was the keyboard that typed them." Of course, the institution itself cannot do, it is up to the individual person to make the decision.
(4) Fallacy #3: Claim: "Jesus and religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum... One is made by God, the other by man." My objection is based on the assumption that "religion" = the gathering of Christians. Sure, we have imperfections, but that doesn't dismiss the command to gather. The Bible doesn't make that exception. As a matter of fact, I don't find many exceptions to what we are instructed to do, if any! And to point out, the gathering was most certainly not created by man.
(a) Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Doesn't sound to me like Jesus came to abolish this. In fact, Jesus blesses the gathering and says that He is with us when we congregate.
(b) 1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." So I'm being told by an imperfect man that church wasn't ordained by God and is an ugly thing, yet the Bible tells me that God's peace rests with the gathering of His imperfect children? I think I'll go with the Bible.
(c) Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another"
(d) 1 Corinthians 14 entails instructions for when we gather together.
(e) 1 John 1:7 "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
Therefore, God doesn't separate himself from things that are holy. From my recollection, the only thing that God separates Himself from is sin. But He loves us unconditionally, imperfections and all.
(5) Claim: "Religion says Do, but Jesus says Done." What's wrong with that? Objection: "Faith without works is dead"...? James 2:17. Plus, the speaker was wanting the "church" to feed people, right? Isn't that a "do"? 
(6) Claim: "Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free." Objection: Again, this is a personal choice. You must accept the gift for Jesus to set you free, (even though we are told the Truth sets us free in John 14). But, if we apply that same logic, wouldn't it be our own personal choice if we ALLOW the church to hold us in bondage? It's a simple choice: shuck it and don't let it bind you!
(7) What this guy is doing is exactly the opposite of what he is pointing fingers at. He wants us, as bodies of believers, not to make claims about what is right and wrong, yet he points out the many imperfections of people. In voicing some of my objections, a few friends pointed out that I shouldn't allow my objections get in the way of me seeing the good... yet, here is the speaker's problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he has once been the object of a church owie, but in my opinion, he has effectively allowed it to taint his perspective of something ordained by God! He overlooks what a church does right. Instead, we hear a laundry list of complaints (to keep myself from falling into the same trap, I have listed my positive remarks). Yes, a church, or body of believers, has hypocrites, but you can't allow what a certain person does taint your view of the whole.
(8) In the caption, the speaker says that religion can end in either one of two ways: pride or despair. Now that, to me, totally misses the mark. I know he said he loves churches, but that statement is highly deterrent of others wanting to become a part of a body. When religion is pure, it brings a person closer to God (thus, a third end, if you will). James 1:27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to take care of orphans and widows in distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." It brings us closer to God as mentioned in Proverbs 27:17 - "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." See? There's some great stuff that association brings about.

I fear the video is going to discourage association. And that's purely contradictory to what the Bible tells us to do. I feel (personal opinion) that Christ didn't intend for us to go stag. He wired us to want to be associated and be able to fit in, so He gave us the church for that. A church that was intended for building others up and strengthening each other. Again, man misses the mark when that goal is not accomplished. But it is wrong to blame the institution when one man's words or actions hurt another. That's like blaming your entire body for stubbing your toe. Satan is stronger when we don't have other Christians to strengthen us (there is strength in numbers), and his attacks are stronger in those scenarios.

Even if we accept the whole as a compilation of imperfect people, we still must love each of those people and forgive them as Christ loves and forgives us. See Matthew 5:43, 1 John 2:9, and 1 John 4:19-21. We are called to see them as Christ sees us - He loves His children and calls them His own.
Please don't let what one person or a group of men taint your view of what God set up as holy. Peace be with you.

My Thorn in the Flesh

2 Corinthians 12:7-10: "In order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." Amen. And such a powerful passage.


God knows me so well, and this verse speaks to me. This is how I perceive myself. Frankly, my thorn in the flesh is being quick to action. I feel that I respond to adversity by objecting, making my voice heard, and standing fast and firm. I take an active approach, not passive; I am a do-er. My problem is I lack sufficient discernment; I don't take a lot of time to think before doing. 


I don't follow James 1:19-20 as well as I should: "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires." And personally I feel like anger could perhaps include incitement to action, not just ill feelings.


That's me (Part 1). In being quick to action, I am about as gentle as a fire hydrant. That's one of my side effects. I turn people off from listening to me because I unintentionally become harsh and brash. Apparently, I get "lawyer-y" on others. Ouch.


I want to change. I have been praying to God that He changes that about me. I feel so far that my answer has been no several times, but I am open to considerations: (a) I may not have been ready or open to it, (b) God may choose to say "no", or (c) God is giving me opportunities to develop the change. It has been, and continues to be, a tough process. I'm trying, and I hope I am receptive to what He has in store for me.

Federal Government Spending

In the wake of Obama's budget/fiscal/whatever speech recently, I shared a stimulating conversation with one of my law school buddies. He and I were mainly focusing on how many in America don't know how to live within their means, and how we spend more than we have. In essence, it's poor accounting (moreover, common sense) skills. You just don't "spend" what you don't have in the tank.

In essence, it's what our President is in the business of doing - pledging money in the red. Some might say he "has" the money (referring to taxpayers), but in reality, it isn't in his hands. My friend then took this conversation in the direction of "infrastructure" and how too much is spent on it. Interesting thought. I wasn't sure at the beginning what it meant, but I think Mark Cuban, interestingly enough, has a great perspective on it from a businessman's standpoint. I'll just let him take over:

In the case of China, They spent . The economy grew. Correct, but very misleading, but also very informative. Infrastructure spending is VERY BENEFICIAL when the spending creates new commerce opportunities. So in China, when roads were built where there previously had not been a road, thats a good thing. It enables commerce. We have seen it in the US with Dams, Highways, Bridges and more.

With the possible exception of the enhancement and building of schools, the only infrastructure investment that makes sense is where COMMERCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ABLE IS NOW ENABLED BY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

The problem in the USA is that those opportunities are few and far between. We have been there and done that. The BIGGER PROBLEM WITH INFRASTRUCTURE is that in the name of creating jobs we actually inhibit commerce and possibly cost jobs. How ? When we rebuild or expand roads as a way of creating jobs, what happens ? We shut down or reduce the traffic on the roads to be rebuilt. The net effect is that during the construction period we CREATE PROBLEMS rather than solve them. We slow down commutes. Which costs people valuable time (and yes time is still money), wastes gas/oil/energy as we sit in traffic and forces traffic to streets not designed for the additional traffic. Not Good. The same could be said with building /bridge remodels or updates and other projects. We all want to see the potholes in our streets filled, but now is not the time to do it, and federal funding is not the way to pay for it.

The bottom line is that we have to understand the difference between Maintenance and Infrastructure. Infrastructure creates opportunity where there was none. Maintenance gets things back to where they were. You INVEST in infrastructure when you can see a return. You SPEND money on maintenance when you not only have the available funds to do so, but also the ability to withstand the downtime and negative productivity impact that comes with the impact of the maintenance work. Yes there are times when you need maintenance to return to a steady business state (ie your computer is broken or safety is an issue with a bridge), but again those have an obvious return.

We have to know the difference and the right time to spend . Otherwise a well intentioned availability of capital not only won’t generate a positive return, but could have a negative local impact.

Handgun Rights, 2nd Amendment

I'm a Christian, but I also believe in defense. My interpretation of scripture, particularly 1 Timothy 5 and Ephesians 5:25-33, calls me to protect my wife and others. I feel it is my Christian duty to take care of others whenever I can. Because of that, I own guns - some for hunting, some for defense. I know that there exists strong disagreements with my view on this, as I have engaged in pretty vehement debate on this particular topic over the past 6 or 7 years. And that's fine. Nevertheless, when it boils down to it, I'd rather look Jesus in the face and say, "Yes, I did what I could to keep my wife safe," rather than, "No, I stood by and watched when my wife's life was in peril."

This is not to say "I'm ready for a man hunt." I'm not looking for trouble in any way and would prefer to be free of incidents as such. As Concealed Handgun course instructors will reiterate time and time again, this is only in instances of last resort. Never should this be a first response.

Anyway, I found this article and thought it was interesting:

Gun laws in the UK are among the most restrictive in the world.  In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed 16 children and one teacher. In the aftermath of this tragedy, British politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting a ban on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms--and they did. The UK was supposed to become a much safer place--but dramatic increases in crime following the gun ban proved it didn't.   A July 3, 2009, Daily Mail article reported that "Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the U.K. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa."

And we now see the riots and mayhem taking over Britain today. People are living in fear. That's no way to go.

Again, I understand this to be a touchy subject, and many people hold a different view than mine - fair enough. I can respect that. Sometimes, my own view is a tough pill to swallow and come to terms with. I just have to view it as preparedness and love for others.