Tragedy has once again struck at the heart of America, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The following were the victims who were shot to death:
Lucero Alcaraz, 19, Quinn Glen Cooper, 18, Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59, Lucas Eibel,18, Jason Dale Johnson, 33, Lawrence Levine, 67, Sarena Dawn Moore, 44, Treven Taylor Anspach, 20, and Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18 (Source)
The shooter was Chris Harper-Mercer, by all accounts, a problem child and troubled teen, a loner who was discharged from the Army just five weeks into basic.
On the day of the shooting, it was reported that he inquired of his victims whether or not they were Christian; if so, they earned a bullet in the head rather than in the legs if they were not. A rather peculiar aspect of this case is the way that the media has massaged the facts to produce a more controversial issue based in part on ethnicity. We have been led to believe that Mr. Mercer is Caucasian, haven't we? Along with some other supposed facts, what is the real deal here? Check out this article.
The President addressed the nation and said that the shooter was someone likely to suffer from some form of mental illness; that America is the only nation that hasn't enough gun safety laws in the face of mass killings. He urged the American people support stricter gun laws, to “politicize the issue”.
The issue of gun control is a hot bed of controversy: there are those who claim that if we had stricter gun control laws, we would be safer as a nation; that there are sufficient guns among the various law enforcement agencies, and ownership of firearms among the public is superfluous.
Others say that if gun laws became more strict, that they would eventually fall under the control of the Federal government, that would issue special licensing for a relative minor percentage of the nation – or even outlaw guns altogether; that our people would be imperiled and at the mercy of criminals accustomed to breaking the law to obtain what they want. Criminals in the private sector or political, that is . . .
One of the reasons why State militias were sanctioned by our founding fathers was that in the event the Federal government were ever to overstep its Constitutional boundaries and became belligerent, the States could force it to step back.
Universities and college campuses are commonly designated as 'gun-free zones' as are many major US cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. Statistics are in ample supply to show that such zones are provisional for shooters as 'easy prey' are everywhere: because they know the chances of any one firing back any time soon is virtually nil.
What would have happened if a gun owner happened to be in the same locality of Chris Mercer just as an off-duty sheriff's deputy was in the vicinity of Jesus Garcia, a gun wielding shooter who terrified restaurant workers who fled to the next door movie theater? He was stopped before he did too much damage.
There wasn't however, because that college campus was a gun-free zone, and Mercer knew that. He didn't decide to go out and try to victimize some people who were out on a shooting range with their rifles. He chose his location based, at the very least in part, on the fact that there would most likely be no other people with guns that could challenge him.
The idea of screening potential gun owners for criminal records and or mental problems is not the controversy; even the most ardent 2nd Amendment Rights Activist should agree with such policy (just as those caught with too many DUI's should lose their driver's license). Guns should be forbidden to such people, and those with criminal intent towards such things as terrorism*.
Gun owners that are responsible citizens, and use such weapons for good, should always have access to their weapons to safeguard themselves, their families and people who might find themselves imperiled by a maddened shooter.
Obviously we should be responsible as a nation regarding who should be able to purchase and own a gun and who should not; any one with a felony, any one who is not “sound of mind” and unable to demonstrate rational judgment, and certain other select situations and cases should warrant the restriction of such a right to bear arms.
[* What about 'potential terrorists'? There are those who consider certain types of Christians as 'potential terrorists' – those that believe in the last days, according to biblical prophecy; who believe that one world government is evil as is the new world order; who ascribe the idea of conspiracy as a credible plausibility, that hold dear the Constitution and our Second Amendment Rights, among other such beliefs.
For more 'qualifiers' as to who a potential terrorist is, for those whom our government, at the behest of psychology authorities, are not - or will not be -considered "of sound mind" (because they are fundamentalist ['extremist'] Bible believers) go here. Thus would such Christians under enacted laws be denied their guns?]
Gun-free zones however would and do pose the problem – where guns are not allowed, those who find no problem with breaking the law would acquire any number of viable targets at their mercy.
The controversy is, that if gun-wielding criminals are able to find such easy marks in gun-free zones in places like University campuses, military bases and certain US cities, how many more easy marks would they find if there were fewer guns among the populace! If the entire nation, or a larger preponderance of our lands were 'gun-free zones'?!
From The CONSERVATIVE REVIEW we have the following:
Strict gun laws did NOT stop the shooter.
Colleges, and this one in particular, are “Gun Free Zones” in almost every part of the country. This college actually has an even stricter weapons policy:
~ Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.
~ Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.
~ Brandishing weapons is prohibited.
~ Misuse of personal defensive weapons – e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.
In speaking of the protection of the public, this is the long held and heralded belief of liberals – that guns are a danger in our society and should be removed from the hands of people, reserved strictly for law enforcement and other similar agencies.
However, history is replete with examples of governments that have done so; and what followed was not exactly in the best interest of the people. Our American founders of the Constitution understood the purpose and value of firearms.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
~~ George Washington.
This as opposed to our current President's long held beliefs ever since he was a congressman in Chicago:
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns. In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores.
Other leaders of nations around the world, down through history, have offered their views of their people owning guns, and this list of nations and their governments is extraordinarily infamous; here are a few:
Tyrants have always loathed an armed people... In the 20th century alone, there is undeniable evidence of the evils of gun control. Let the facts of history be the evidence:
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control under one of the bloodiest despots in modern history, Joseph Stalin. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Christians, gypsies, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda, under brutal dictator Idi Amin, established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated (Source)
Are we suggesting that this is the very intent of our Federal government, and in particular the current occupant in the White House? There are other nations such as England and Australia that have enacted gun control laws that haven't fallen into despotic and, or delusional tyranny of course. Not yet at any rate . . .
From the immediately above article cited as “source” we have the following quote:
“Since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender firearms to their own government, the results are now in: homicides, assaults, and armed robberies are surging! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns, and are less afraid to use them!
“When I was in Australia a couple of years ago, I asked a friend if everyone turned in their guns. He said that about one-third did, but two-thirds hid their guns, because they know that some day they may have to defend themselves against their own government.”
The same can be said regarding the state of Massachusetts:
One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.” It didn’t.
The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000.” The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter.”
But the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.
Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, "robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.”
Given the nature of Barak Obama however, and his affinity for Socialist ideologists such as Saul Alinsky (author of RULES for RADICALS; a blue print for Community Organizing, a preparation strategy for forming a Socialist nation. Obama was a very proficient Community organizer during his days in Illinois and elsewhere) it would seem at the very least plausible that his intentions for our well being is duplicitous. That, as with any Socialist regime, gun control is a given.
The very premise of gun control and it's virtues have been touted long and loud by liberals aka socialists here in America, but the promised peace such would supposedly bring is based on false premises. Myths in fact - - such things as “public opinions favors gun control . . . armed citizens don't deter crime . . . gun control reduces crime . . .” and others as found here.
It seems that just about every time the subject of gun control showers the media, the sales of guns sky rockets. No one wants to be left out if guns are suddenly banned and people are left defenseless against dangers both seen and unforeseen.
Certainly our government must be aware of this phenomenon; if they genuinely wanted guns to be diminished among the American people, why would they continue to hammer on this issue, knowing the result would be even more guns purchased by the public?
And there seems to be a correlation between the density of guns present in any quadrant of our society and the diminished crime rate that accompanies it (no criminal wants to get gunned down while perpetrating their profession, right? In the following article one set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center).
If guns are responsible for these travesties, then spoons are the culinary culprits for all the obesity of this nation, and cars for the road fatalities. I recently read, "If gun control makes it safer by restricting law abiding citizens their firearms, then the roads will be safer by restricting motor vehicle licenses to sober drivers".
It's absurd to think that either guns, spoons or cars are guilty for the wrong doings committed with them. It's the person using those instruments that is the guilty party of course. Take guns away and these people will simply use bows and arrows, or knives, or even sticks and stones, or their bare hands if need be.
How do we keep people from overeating? Or causing fatalities on the highway? Or preventing them from killing people with a deadly weapon?
The issue is not guns – but the human heart! And this leads me to the second half of this article.
PART TWO – SOUL CONTROL
Mankind has had at least six thousand years to prove whether or not he can govern himself; to demonstrate if he can use power responsibly, justly and truthfully. Suffice it to say that in general, he has not done well in proving this point, whether one regards the governing of nations or simply that of his own heart.
Anyone with a gun is empowered; how one handles that empowerment or any kind for that matter reveals the sort of heart one has. We dealt with this matter once before on The RED PILL Consortium: The POWER of LOVE, The LOVE of POWER.
A person of temperance is a person under control, but how do we acquire this temperance in the first place? The Law of God points out the LORD's expectation of our conduct, the standard by which we shall be judged. These laws (if we could obey them) would govern our souls in righteous living.
For an excellent teaching on the Ten Commandments, I present Josh Boubion of The HOUSE of TRUTH Fellowship youtube channel, based largely on EXODUS 20.
EXODUS 20:1-17 - The Great Ten
Some may find that they have this virtue by the wisdom of years of experience, and to a certain and limited extent, this is valid. However, the most powerful and enduring form of temperance comes from the Spirit of God, His Spirit of Love and Grace:
GALATIANS 5:22-25
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
The best way to govern the heart is by enthroning the LORD Jesus Christ there; to repent of one's sin, to turn to the LORD for salvation and His abiding Spirit, and the fruit that results from such. Note that temperance is among this fruit, this fruit of God's love in our lives.
The nature of man is a sinful nature (ROM 3:20, 23), and sin is the essence of rebellion and lawlessness (ISAIAH 1:4). It is the very rotten fruit of this world and why there is so much suffering, oppression, injustice, etc.
If we would have a society of people whose souls were under control – not chaotic and prone to mayhem – then they must seek the LORD and His mercy at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ: there the brutal and unruly heart of man is replaced with a new heart (EZEK 36:26; JOHN 3:3-5; 1 PET 1:23) and such a heart in the meekness of the LORD will be able to wield power with such responsible conduct as is honoring to the LORD.
The basis of how we live our lives today as Christians, the faithfulness in which we minister to the LORD in our marriages, our families, our church ministry (including the Gospel and discipleship), our jobs, etc. will actually help determine the extent of our rule with Christ once He establishes His government in this world (MATT 25:21-23). When Scripture states that the “meek shall inherit the Earth” it wasn't joking. The supreme example of meekness is the LORD Jesus Christ and He shall reign over heaven and earth as KING of Kings and LORD of Lords.
On the subject of meekness, perhaps you might consider these two teachings on the subject: MEEKNESS is NOT WEAKNESS but GREATNESS: Part One and Part Two
The very anti-thesis of meekness, holiness, righteousness, justice, faithfulness as well as love of truth and the truth of love (qualifications for rule under the Kingdom of the heaven by the way) is pride, arrogance, selfishness, wickedness, lust for power – the very characteristics of Satan himself, and those that belong in the kingdom of darkness. Since the people of this world are under the reign of Satan (whether knowingly or not according to 2 COR. 4:4; EPH. 5:7-9 and 1 THESS. 5:4-5).
Suffice it to say, that since the whole of humanity is under such jurisdiction and such a nature, it would be impossible for them to rule themselves well with any enduring and lasting effects.
At best we could only hold our base nature in check by legal structures based on just law (thus the need for punitive actions taken against law breakers via law enforcement and judicial infrastructures), and then this would prove a losing battle in the long term. The human race is degenerating into deplorable depravity, and we are soon approaching – if we haven't already achieved such – a level of evil that was found in the days of Noah:
GENESIS 6:5
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The apostle Paul treated the subject of man's heart condition with extreme precision and thoroughness in ROMANS Chapter Six; let us conclude this article by an overview of this treatment.
ROMANS 6:1-6
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Paul's admonition here is that we as saints should not continue in sin as an excuse due to the infinite supply of God's grace; on the contrary because of the grace of God we are empowered to live our lives according to the enabling grace of the indwelling Spirit.
The very representation of water baptism demonstrates that we are buried with Christ so that our sinful self is “dead to sin” and now provided for a new life in Christ by His grace.
The Cross of Christ is where the LAMB of GOD died FOR our sin, and it's the same place where Christians die TO sin. This is not to suggest that Christians never sin, because we are still in possession of a sin nature (the Bible refers to such as our “flesh”; ROM 8:1, 4, 21-22; GAL. 5:16) and we presently must confess any sin that we might commit (1 JOHN 1:7-10; 2:1-2). We have the promise that we shall ultimately be delivered from sin with this “body of death” is no more, and we come into possession of our glorified bodies (ROM 7:24; 1 COR 15:51-58).
ROMANS 6:7-12
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Because of the truth that Christ died, but rose again with resurrection power, He has conquered sin and death; likewise – says Paul – we are to account ourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God. We as saints are to be governed by God, not by sin: and this is the essential problem with sinful humanity and why Christians may struggle in their lives against sin.
The unredeemed is governed by their sin nature, and because of his sin nature Chris Harper-Mercer committed murder of those many souls. Scripture even states that if we hate (KJV says “angry”), we have committed murder in our hearts (MATT. 5:21-22; 15:19). Again, it's not really GUN control that is the primary issue, it's SOUL control! And Christians are admonished to let righteousness rule in their lives, not sin:
ROMANS 6:13-18
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
And the remainder of this chapter:
ROMANS 6:19-23
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Slaves of sin will acquire the wages of that hard and miserable labor, as the whips of demonic task masters crack overhead; the eventual and grievous fruit of sin which is death. Chris Harper-Mercer is an unredeemed sinner, who for the sin nature that permeates his being has seen the fruit of his sin: the death of those nine souls; eventually his own death as well unless he repents and seeks the LORD for salvation!
So is the case with us all who do not yet know Christ; too, too many people esteem themselves as “basically good” and declare that justification by saying, “It's not like I've ever murdered anybody!” (but if you take the words of the LORD Jesus seriously, any one with hate in their heart towards another human being, has committed murder already!). However, the fires of hell will hold many countless numbers of souls who never committed murder, but have rejected Christ and His offer of salvation nonetheless:
REVELATION 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
1 THESS. 1:7-9
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
So then, in conclusion, let me ask you the question that saints of old would inquire of one another:
“How goes it with your soul?” Is it under the leadership of the Holy and Righteous LORD, Jesus Christ? Or are you still governed by your sin nature which will lead you (and perhaps others, such as the victims of Mr. Mercer) to death? Turn to the LORD, for you know not what may become of your life today or tomorrow.
