Thoughts and Prayers

This captures my visceral reaction to the inertia in gun control legislation.

And, for those seeking my more reasoned thoughts:

Prayer is a dialogue with a moral authority about improvement.

Thought is a process of analysing and reasoning rather than blindly following instincts and emotions.

So, true thoughts and prayers in response to an atrocity would be a commitment to understanding the problem and fixing it, not thinking of ways to distract from the lack of a response and praying one got away with it.

And not falling back on the second amendment. A thing that in it’s very name validates that rules can be changed.

11 thoughts on “Thoughts and Prayers

    1. Indeed. The fact the US Constitution has Amendments means it is designed to be changed rather than treated as unquestionable.

      Obviously, that doesn’t mean it should be changed on a whim, but does mean that the Founding Fathers probably didn’t intend their understanding of the world to become secular gospel.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. In regards to the recent shooting in Texas, there are gun control laws already on the books that, if they had been enforced, would have prevented the shooter from owning a firearm. The law didn’t stop the shooter, what did stop him was an armed civilian who was willing to take action.


    1. If there are laws that are not being enforced, then either the law is flawed in that it is not enforceable, the enforcers are flawed in choosing not to enforce it, or the provision of enforcers is flawed in that there are not the persons and resources to enforce it.

      So, the issue falls upon the legislature, executive, or judiciary at local or national level (as appropriate) to remedy the flaw through changing legislation, increasing fiscal, training, or other resources, or sanctioning those who are not performing their duty.

      I’m aware that the recent murder spree in Texas was ended by a private individual rather than the state; my point is that a government that does not seek to remove the need for citizens to act as judge, jury, and executioner is not striving for the highest good.


        1. I have no issue with people having a reasonable ability to protect themselves; which, if they live in an area with dangerous wildlife, could include guns. My issue is that a nation where people feel they need semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves from each other, has a government that hasn’t done enough to protect them.


            1. I’d suggest a certain amount of that shift is down to people wanting more of them to defend themselves because more of them are available; so there’d be a different range of guns if there weren’t the same “need a gun to be safe” influence.

              However, you do highlight an issue with my formulation: probably should be “a nation where people feel they need to habitually carry weapons to defend themselves from each other, has a government that hasn’t done enough to protect them.”


                1. Certainly wouldn’t argue the US government hasn’t been a paragon for at least the last few decades, if not longer.

                  Fundamentally, it comes down to me being able to walk the streets unarmed without feeling afraid whereas the US government don’t give that to their people. So, I stand by my belief they’ve failed to act appropriately.


Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.