The rule of law is considered a bedrock principle of our nation and central to ordered liberty.

This post is the third in a series intended to explore the unique nature and significance of the American rule of law to the moral, political, and economic well-being of our nation.

Dr. Virginia Armstrong and the Blackstone Institute assert that three characteristics of a strong constitutional republic include certainty, consistency, and continuity, which are “core characteristics of the rule of law and justice.”[1] Note: that does not mean without change.  Change can occur, and in fact needs to occur, in accordance with the founding principles in day to day governance as well as in effecting necessary major change when the “law” is favoring an unjust cause such as slavery or abortion.  The American rule of law was designed to function with certainty, consistency, and continuity in contrast to other forms of arbitrary, uncertain, and inconsistent governance. 

To rightly administer the American rule of law it is necessary to acknowledge the relationship and continuity between the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  Those documents comprise two of four making up what is recognized by our government as our nation’s organic law.[2]

In just the last seven days, American outrage has been ignited as citizens have discovered that their federal government surreptitiously captured the phone records of AP reporters; used the IRS to discriminate against political conservatives; and established a secret program to capture the phone and data records of over 100 million American citizens.

With all due respect to the gifted scholars who have published at length on these topics, such as Hayek, Friedman, Burke, von Mises, Voegelin, and Kristol, I believe that the answer to the original question is found within the work of Michael Novak’s, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.  Novak postulates that capitalism works best when three elements are balanced:  political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.

Comparatively, the United States continues to bring forth the world’s great wellspring of both political and economic freedoms.  It is the final element, moral restraint, which currently suffers great decay.  Novak reasons that these three elements act interdependently, much like the legs on a stool, to support each other, and in so doing, support the democratic capitalist system. 

Should one leg fail, the system collapses.

One of the reasons that we have so many problems in our government, economy, and society is that we have separated economic activity from the kind of self-imposed moral behavior that we are called to pursue.  Perhaps one of the most famous examples can be found in the story of Kenneth Lay, the son of a preacher who grew to become not only a leader in his church, but also a skilled leader in private business.  But he will forever be remembered for his role at the center of the Enron controversy.  For all his education, he could not reconcile his deep faith with his business practices.  By compartmentalizing the moral guidance that his faith was supposed to provide, he lacked the moral restraint and concern for economic justice that are essential for the success of free enterprise. We need to balance one with the other. 

All of the problems we have in the economy are functionally caused by the collapse of the leg of moral restraint on Novak’s stool.  Historically, when society fails to provide its own moral restraint in the form of self-imposed limits on individual behavior, someone has to step in to maintain order–and that is always government. If the individuals in our society do not regulate their own behavior, they give the government the power to di it for them. The net result is the government steps in to take over more of the economy under the guise of “fixing” the problems caused by the lack of moral restraint.  In this way, a republic gives way to a soft-socialism.  Soft socialism eventually gives way to hard socialism.  And hard socialism always ends at the barrel of a gun.

While it is easy to interpret today’s headlines as an infringement on political freedom (and it is), its root cause is actually the decay of moral restraint by those charged with the administration of power.  Those at the heart of today’s scandals would do well to heed the warning sign provided by Kenneth Lay.  The loss of moral guidance and restraint leads to the abuse of power and the subrogation of both economic and political freedoms. Moral restraint must be exercised if we are going to remain the home of the free and the brave. 

Before I tell you why I am against the concept—it’s probably best that we all get on the same page—definition-wise. 

Tolerance. We’ve all heard about. Over and over and over again. It’s the hot topic, it’s the popular term. It’s that little buzz word that gives you a social stamp of approval. 

This word gets thrown around way too often, and no one really seems to grasp its meaning. We live in a world where “tolerance” is actually one-sided. Standing up for what you believe in is only “tolerated” when it agrees with popular opinion. We praise those who state how they feel on an issue…only when it’s what we also believe, of course. Well, that’s not tolerance, that’s approval. That’s just agreeing. 

True Tolerance, by definition, only exists when one person disagrees with another, and yet chooses to permit/accept the other person’s view or belief. 

Tolerance as it is used today does not actually tolerate two opinions. Tolerance is reserved for those who high five each other’s opinions, not accept each other’s differences. If tolerance were really tolerance, those who so proudly claim it wouldn’t be attacking the intolerant.  

This is the paradox of tolerance. 

You cannot honestly say you are tolerant if you aren’t willing to accept/permit when others don’t agree with you. Very few people actually understand that. 

Now enough about the semantics. If you really understand what tolerance means, you should be able to “accept” my opinion when I come right out and say that I am 100% intolerant.  And I’m not ashamed to say so. 

I happily embrace intolerance, because I don’t believe God calls Christians to be “tolerant.” In fact, nowhere in the Bible does God tell us to be tolerant—especially not when it comes to things he calls “sin.” 

Far too often Christians sit idly by as the rest of the world waves the tolerance flag in our faces. We’ve been fed this huge lie that states that speaking against things that God clearly defines as wrong is actually being “morally courageous.” It’s what the world calls “tolerance.” We have been taught to sit down and shut up and keep our opposing opinions to ourselves, because that’s what we’re “supposed” to do, right? And we justify that way of thinking—because we want to “love everyone and show them God’s love.” 

Well, guess what? That’s not being a Christian and it’s not being loving. That’s being a coward. That’s misrepresenting Christ’s love. 

To be a Christian means to stand FIRMLY against what God disapproves of—to love what God loves and hate what God hates. 

You who love the LORD, hate evil! He protects the lives of his godly people and rescues them from the power of the wicked (Psalm 97:10)

If you are a Christian, you have a DUTY to stand up against sin. That is not an option. That’s a command. Not ONCE does God tell us to stand up and support tolerance when it disagrees with His Word. I don’t care what that means for your social standing. Look at Paul. Do you think he gained many friends speaking out against all of the popular and yet sinful practices of the world? In fact, God pretty much assures us that the world will hate you for taking such a stand. 

”If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.  (John15:18-19)

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. (1 John 2:15-17 )

Translation? You’re not going to be popular when you stand against popular opinion. I know, it’s hard to believe.

Let me be very clear about something… Being intolerant does not mean I am going to be rude, disrespectful or hateful to someone who disagrees with me. It’s not my job to “condemn” someone for what I know to be wrong according to God’s word. I know I wouldn’t want everyone else condemning me for my wrongdoings, because I’ve racked up quite a list of my own. 

 “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:7)

In fact, I have plenty of friends who are not Christians who will starkly disagree with me on most issues. We are friends, and I love them, but I will never let them believe that I am okay with what they stand for. To let them believe that would not only be a lie, but it would be a false representation of God and His love.  

And for those of you reading who are not Christians, then my beliefs according to the Bible probably don’t mean much to you, anyway. Therefore I can understand why you don’t agree—because you don’t measure right and wrong by the same God that I do. I get it. And I am not EVER going to be rude or disrespectful to you because of that.

But I am not going to tolerate/accept your beliefs as “one version of right living,” –even though I’m pretty sure you should “tolerate” my intolerance, because if you don’t, you are just as intolerant as I am. 

For those of you who call yourselves Christians…you should be careful with your “tolerant” ideas. While God is never going to stop loving you, he clearly speaks out against people who claim Him but stand against Him.

“Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.” (Matthew 12:30) 

“So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:16)

If you truly follow Christ, we are called to stand with Him, to stand against sin, and to love others DESPITE their actions against Him—just as God loves all of us despite our sins. 

And so I encourage you—I implore you. Don’t be tolerant. Be loving, be prayerful, be an example of Christ to others…But do not join the bandwagon and start accepting things God hates. 

We are to love others, regardless of their background, religion or other beliefs, but not at the expense of standing on His Word and standing up for truth. Loving people and tolerating their beliefs are two totally different things.

Hannah Taylor was born in Kerrville, Texas and graduated from Baylor University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film and Communications and a minor in Journalism. Hannah currently lives in Los Angeles, California where she works as the Production Coordinator at FOX Sports on FOX NFL Sunday, America’s #1 Pregame show. Hannah has a passion for the news and entertainment industry and loves to write and travel as much as possible. The views expressed in this blog post are her own. 

At the onset of the Boston Marathon bombing, pundits, bloggers, the general public on Facebook, and other media were quick to try and guess the religious and political persuasion of the bomber or bombers. Those on the left were quick to say it had the hallmarks of a “right wing white supremacist” Christian group, and those on the right were quick to say it looks like the work of Islamic terrorists. I honestly had no clue, although, I must confess that I did harbor a slight fear that it might be a so-called “Patriot Christian.”

As I quickly uttered the question of God, “Father, what’s wrong with these people,” I received a very quick and simple answer.  “It’s about the blood Eddie, it’s always about the blood.”  I then asked, “What?” The reply I heard was, “It’s about whose blood is being shed.” I was stunned at the simplicity and yet the power in that simple response.

Here is what I believe God was saying and what I want to pass on to you. God speaking to Moses as recorded in Leviticus said the following: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.”

What has always stood out to me are the words, “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” I think we take the significance of this for granted. Blood equals life and the shedding of blood equals death.

How does this relate to the Islam, Christian or terrorism discussion?  It is the view of the shedding of blood that separates the true faith from a false faith in the living God.  The false faith, by the way, is not limited to Islam. There are those who call themselves Christians whose faith is just as off base as the religion of Mohammed. The difference can be summed up in 6 words, two sets of three words actually. These words are: pride vs. humility, selfishness vs. sacrifice and hate vs. love.

Christianity is characterized by humility, sacrifice and love. The religion of “The Prophet,” and in Allah, is one of pride, selfishness and hate.  Islam and some so-called Christian groups, such as Christian Identity, are rooted in an attitude of self-service and superiority.  Interestingly enough, however; these religions of superiority always feel the need to eliminate the lesser infidels.

 Let’s look at this more closely. In Christianity everything begins with the humility, sacrifice and love displayed by Jesus.

…the payment that freed you was the precious blood of Christ, the lamb with no defects or imperfections.  1 Pet. 1:19 (God’s Word Translation)

Jesus was the ultimate example of how the faith in the true and living God should be lived.  His life was one of humility, self-sacrifice and love. I cannot stress that enough. His followers should not be different.

In his work Apologeticus, Tertullian stated the “The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the church.”  The Church of Jesus, the Messiah, was birthed and is built upon the blood of Christ.

This is born out in the following:

These are the people who are coming out of the terrible suffering. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Rev.7:14 (GWT) 

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. Rev. 12:11 (NKJV)

It is not only Christians to whom this is attributed.

Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. ³⁶ Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. ³⁷ They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted,^[f] were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— ³⁸ of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.

³⁹ And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise. Hebrews 11:35a-39 (New King James)

Remember to whom this was written and when.  While this verse is often attributed to Christian saints and martyrs, it is clear from the time and context in which this was written about Hebrew believers.

Look at all of this in contrast to Islamic teaching.

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” [Al-Qur’an 2:190-191]

“But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Al-Qur’an 2:192-193]

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.” [Al-Qur’an 60:8]

Some Muslim apologists want us to believe that these verses speak of the compassion of Islam and that it only speaks of self-defense.  But no, it states clearly:  “Fight all who fight you, in the cause of Allah.”  It goes on, “If they fight you, slay them.”   What does it mean by fighting? The compassion apologists claim can be found in the following statement: “If they cease, Allah is often forgiving until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” This means that Allah is “often forgiving” of those who are fighting you only if they cease fighting and quit causing tumult and oppression. If they do not cease, the prophet clearly says to slaughter of those people.

Clearly, these two religions differ greatly and their ideologies and teachings are often at odds with one another. How should Christians defend their faith against those who oppose it? Well, I believe that Christians fail to make the case for The Faith in two ways.  First, Christians are often afraid to directly confront those with a false religion and call it what it is.  We have accepted the lie that we are “intolerant” if we disagree with their words and ideas. We have become deceived into thinking that acceptance is love. Secondly, there are those who want to confront Islam with an attitude that is similar to the attitude that characterizes Islam—the attitude of pride, selfishness and hate. We cannot win over those who do not share our faith with attitudes like “our religion is better than yours,” “I or we are the chosen,” or, “I hate you and all who look and think like you.”  Those were sins of the Jews. They thought they were chosen because of their righteousness and that they were special.  In Deuteronomy 9 God spoke to the Jews through Moses, reminding them over and over again that He had not chosen them because of their superiority— they were in fact to be a witness.  Many still have not gotten that message, and sadly, it appears that neither have many Christians.

We cannot fight for our faith with the weapons of this world.  We cannot win by using either of the above approaches.  The weapons of our warfare are those of the Kingdom of God.  We must have total confidence in the power of God, His Spirit and His Word.  That confidence comes from an understanding of and confidence in The Blood of the Lamb.  May we never forget that. It is then that we WILL become those witnesses.

 
Eddie Huff is a former missionary and licensed minister with an undergraduate degree from Texas Tech University. Eddie studied theology in the M. Div. program at Melodyland Theological Seminary in Anaheim, CA. Eddie is also a financial services representative as well as a writer and public speaker living in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The marginalization of the individual and the mulish control of government on society drove America’s forefathers to develop an entirely new set of ideas and a radical blueprint for a new society. These ideas ignited not only rebellion, but the burgeoning seeds of Capitalism in the West.  These seeds were planted by the Church with the intent of separating society from the control and manipulation of government as well as to ensure the protection of freedom.  This experiment was, to a large degree, a backlash against the marginalization of individual freedoms and an affirmation of God endowed rights.   

The question of Capitalism as a construct is multifaceted as its expanse extends well beyond an unfettered, laissez-faire approach to free market. It is buttressed by its roots in an ambition to provide protection and recognition of its individual players and their respective rights, freedom, and dignity.  As a result, the modern assault on the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism cannot simply be viewed as a fresh and modernized approach to an old, worn out system.  It is much larger than simply the problems of government intervention in free markets, given Capitalism’s history, it is a potential assault on the sacredness of the individual. 

Despite the most ambitious attempts, the reach of God cannot be shortened or extricated from the dialogue of Free-Market Capitalism or Constitutional liberty as each involved, serve to elevate the sacred; sacred, or the imago deo, the created image of God (i.e., Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 5:1-3, Genesis 9:6).  

The early church father, Tertullian asked, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” In fact, Jerusalem, or the Church, has much to say about Athens or the Academy.  The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  A Christian worldview presupposes a lens by which we come to understand and make sense of the world, humanity, education, commerce, and policy. It informs decisions and elevates the dignity of the individual. The postmodern prophets evangelize a naturalistic ethos which elevates scientific inquiry and empiricism at the expense of the dignity and distinctiveness of the “sacred” and these notions have a cascading effect that influences the way society makes sense of the world. As a result, the supernatural is replaced with natural, and thus the removal of God and His endowment of distinctiveness on humanity. 

The danger of marginalizing Free-Market Capitalism and Constitutional Liberty and relegating it to a manipulatable system of quasi-statism may be tolerable and intellectually amenable at first blush, in fact, its exigency may prove reasonable. Even so, the eventuality of its consequences relinquishes control to government to dictate economic, social policy, rights, and then ultimately, the control of its people, a power and authority that stands in stark contrast to not only the Constitution, but most importantly, the intent and aim of God Himself.

Like a young child with explosives, undeveloped ideas, naively proffered are seemingly innocent intellectual exercises. However, given enough time, freedom to roam, and an ignition source, these seemingly innocuous ideas may come to a tragic conclusion. Intention is less important than consequence and it is these potential consequences that demand the vigilance of Christendom and the Academy to ensure the dignity and freedom of the sacred is ultimately preserved.    

 Aristotle, Nichomachean ethics II, 3 

 Dr. Brian Epperson is an Assistant Professor at the Chesapeake Energy School of Business. He completed his Bachelor of Arts at Northeastern State University, his masters at Oklahoma State University, and his doctorate at the University of Oklahoma. 

His mission and purpose is to live a life in service to others and in doing so, to help guide them to a greater realization of their own ultimate purpose, giftedness, and inimitable potential. He considers teaching a privilege but most importantly, a tremendous responsibility and an enormous opportunity to make a contribution that extends well beyond one’s work and life. 

American women are expected to have, on average, fewer than two children.  The U.S. birthrate is the lowest in nearly a century according to the Pew Research Center. In 1970 the average woman gave birth to 4.7 children in her lifetime, but today across the globe the figure is 2.5 children. By 2050, according to the United Nations, “48 countries out of a world total of 229 will have smaller populations than in 2010.  In 1980 the median age was 23; by 2050, it will be 38. Already, the burden of supporting aging populations with a shrinking pool of able-bodied workers threatens the solvency of government in advanced countries.” That is probably the most truthful part of Mr. Kenny’s article as it went on to say, “Policymakers and the public will have to adjust to changes in the way we allocate resources and define work.”

There of course is no mention of the 50 million American citizens who were aborted for the general population’s pleasure.  Those citizens are needed today. They would have balanced out population shifts and been contributors to society. What many pro-choice advocates don’t know is that planned Parenthood has its roots in race eugenics.  Would society have been better off had President Obama’s mother selected that route or the mother of Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University?

Affordability is a key factor many couples consider when they are deciding whether or not to have children and how many they should have. In 1992 my father, Tony Keating was 83 years old. My brother and I were in our 40’s.  Normally, if your parent is in their 80’s one would expect to be in or around 60. I remember asking my dad why he had married so late.  What a feeble question on my part— like life is a bed of roses. Dad easily answered that he couldn’t afford it.  He graduated college in 1932 right in the middle of the depression, which is why his generation was called the “greatest”—because of what they survived. Lying between the depression and World War II are fifteen lost years. 

There are others factors today contributing to our population deficit in addition to affordability—lack of stable families and an uncertain economy also play a part. People can’t afford the cost of raising children— even their own.  Little effort is made to teach young girls the consequences of premarital sex, which can and has led to many mothers with several children from multiple fathers.  And everyone knows the value of two parent families, but since we can’t be judgmental, it’s not often said. The uncertain economy and the breadth of welfare programs that must be funded by taxes mean that even though you may limit your family, you are still paying for someone else’s child. There are 46 million Americans on food stamps—a real American tragedy.

High tax rates, illegitimacy and abortions are some of the key reasons the population is in decline. With the advances in medical science and technology we should be on the verge of creating a society with economic opportunities for all.   Yet we are squandering these opportunities with unstoppable government spending designed to keep re- electing office holders.

The low birthrate of our country will have a detrimental effect on our nation in the future. Children are the future of this country, and they are needed to sustain a healthy economy. Italy, Japan and Russia are already facing the problems of a decreasing population size. The declining birth rate has not been beneficial for America, and our children are not better educated and our society is not better off. 

When Oklahoma Wesleyan students heard about this injustice, they were determined to do something about it. First they asked themselves, “What can college students in the town of Bartlesville, Oklahoma do?” Because they realized that it is often difficult for college students to offer financial support, they established The Orange Movement, which capitalizes on the unique skills and support that they can offer— like the time, energy, and technological skills that are necessary to inform people of the problem.

Last week, The Orange Movement connected with the Oklahomans Against Trafficking Humans Coalition (OATH), and Run Free by Venture Expeditions to run the happiest 5k on earth— The Color Run. Because the color run had over 13,000 participants, it was a great opportunity to inform Oklahomans about human trafficking and the ways they can help.

The Orange Movement, named after the abolitionist Reverend Orange Scott, is a grassroots student ministry that seeks to bring awareness to the problem and to connect people with organizations that are on the front lines in the fight against human trafficking.

More than 150 individuals registered to run on the behalf of OATH, and in order to raise money, they solicited friends and family to sponsor them. To date, they have raised over $3000, which will go directly to OATH Coalition to aid in their efforts to rescue those enslaved right here in Oklahoma. This money raised by the runners will help OATH begin the process of establishing rescue homes, which Mark Elam, OATH founder and leader, suggests is critical, especially for girls trafficked between the ages of 12 and 17.

Human trafficking is a tragedy and a problem for our state, our country, and the world. It cannot be ignored. 

To see how you can join the fight against human trafficking visit oathcoalition.org. 

According to Christian apologist Abdu Murray, Christianity’s worldview is unique in the way it engages both the heart and the mind with a narrative. This important because “what the heart does not accept, the mind will never ascent to, but what the mind does not reject, the heart will never embrace.” In order to have a fully formed worldview— you need to touch both.

In the end, people are seeking a narrative that applies to their life. They do not need a platitude slapped on their pain and they do not want a relative truth. Christianity is the only worldview that provides that narrative and is the only worldview that answers the fundamental questions of existence.

Abdu Murray explored these questions and answers while sharing his journey from Islam to Christianity as the inaugural speaker for the newly formed Josh McDowell Institute at Oklahoma Wesleyan University.

Because of his background, Abdu’s perspective on religion is unique. He was born into an extremely devout Muslim family in Michigan. In fact, when Abdu grew up, he was so passionate about his beliefs that he studied to Christianity so he could convert Christians to Islam. But after studying Christianity, he found that instead of refuting it, he believed and embraced the Christian faith.

To hear more of his extraordinary story, click here. His second talk is also available here.

Ah, the tune just came to me, “Happy Days are here Again,” the Democrat theme song so well crafted for today and tomorrow. The President and his team are beginning their final push.  Like the siege at Dien Bien Phu, which was designed to once and for all crush the French and drive them out of Indochina, the Democrat plan is to take back the House of Representatives and leave any remaining Republicans in a permanent retreat.

The first step is to convince the public that happy times are indeed here or just around the corner.  With the coming of spring it’s a perfect time to outline how things have improved.  Car sales are up and Americans are beginning to borrow against their new home equity after four years of a down market brought about by the Bush Depression.

Well, the President and his supporters may feel that “Happy Times” are indeed here given their record of rolling the Republican House and Senate  leadership, but the economic facts are seriously quite the opposite.

Although the Dow Jones Industrial Average is maybe at its all time high and many Americans have benefited, the reality is the markets can be moved just as easily down as up. For those who think the market is not rigged you might read Bloomberg Businessweeks’ January 17, 3013 article titled, “On the trail of SAC Capital’s Steven Cohen.”

One  paragraph says it all when a former trader was asked what the word “edge” meant to him.  “He laughed and said that from  the day he started at Galleon to the day he left, it was probably the most commonly used term around the office.  It was such a priority, that if you didn’t have it, you’d be quickly left behind.  It meant you knew something that others didn’t.”  Another trader involved in an insider-trading investigation was asked if he knew of any hedge fund that didn’t traffic in illegal information. “No,” the trader answered, “They would never survive.”

The majority of Americans missed out on Wall Street’s gains because they’ve lost trust in the system.  They were burned in the 90′s with Dot Com recommendations for all sorts of companies that had no revenue, let alone net income.  Poor federal oversight and wrong-headed policies killed the real estate world ten years later, and with it, many Americans’ only tangible equity.

All that has left confidence among American consumers in a funk. The University of Michigan’s sentiment index fell in March to 71.8, and the gauge based on press hype was expected to jump to 78.

The economy and hiring are going nowhere. The January tax hike and sequester has slowed spending. What car sales there are can be traced to replacing washed out autos from Hurricane Sandy not new sales.

Fuel costs are out of line given economic forces. With an improving dollar the price of crude should drop below $85.00 a barrel. Retail sales are such that Target and  Wal-mart shoppers  are now going to Dollar General and Dollar Tree to make ends meet.  The world economy has slowed, and we in America owe too much. You can hear war drums in the distance.

There are still millions of Americans not working or unemployed. The sequester is expected to cut unemployment benefits and beginning in 2014 healthcare insurance costs could double for the average American family.

Today is not the time to splurge. “Happy times” are not here and won’t be until President Obama is gone or Republicans get a backbone and give up jocking for dinner invitations from the President.

1. From a historical perspective, prohibition-styled laws have rarely achieved their intended goals yet have had unintended consequences.  One has only to look at Prohibition as an example.   Not only did it fail to achieve the desired goal, but mob violence also increased as factions fought to control the black market supply.  Likewise, the War on Drugs has not significantly decreased drug usage, but rather inadvertently assisted in the formation of powerful Drug Cartels and increased violence over drug-sales turf in our cities.
2. Those who deal with gun violence on a daily basis seriously question the effectiveness of proposed gun control legislation.  A recent poll among police officers conducted by PoliceOne, whose 400,000 plus membership is comprised of current and retired law enforcement officers, revealed that 91.5% of the law enforcement respondents said that additional gun control or weapons and ammunition bans would either have no effect on reducing violent crime, or may increase violent crime.
3. Some point out that strict gun control laws in other countries have been successful in deterring violent crime.  Japan, Britain, and Australia are often cited as examples of such.  One problem with this argument is that the cultural, political, reporting practices, and historical differences are not taken into account.  In addition, the handling of criminals and efficiency and effectiveness of alternate criminal justice systems seems to have had more potential impact on crime rates than gun control laws.
4. Another argument being made is that gun control laws are similar to other laws that create limits and rules thereby making society a safer place.  This argument should be rejected on the premise that most laws are designed criminalize specific bad behavior such as murder and rape, whereas gun control laws restrict all people by penalizing or restricting them from ownership.
5. Looking at crime from a criminological perspective, crime occurs when the conditions of a motivated suspect, an opportune target, and a lack of a guardian are all present.  In essence, additional gun restrictions, ammunition bans, or other gun control proposals all potentially remove ‘guardians’ from society and thereby increase the likelihood of the three conditions converging.  This can be seen in the mass shootings that have occurred in that they have primarily occurred in ‘gun free’ zones where the likelihood of an armed protector was minimal.
6. The statement, “If it just saves one child, it’s worth it” should also be scrutinized for legitimacy.  Although this sounds like a worthy cause, it brings the up the question, how many lives will be lost because someone didn’t have the ability to defend themselves or others due to banning or limiting access to weapons, magazines, or ammunition?
7. Finally, more stringent gun control and ammunition limitations erode the Second Amendment Right to bare arms.  The Second Amendment was carefully crafted to provide for the security of a free State against outside forces as well as also to prevent governmental rule from within.  While capitulating to reduced magazine capacities may seem acceptable, once the government is permitted to intrude upon one of our rights where will it intrude next?   Perhaps today the government intrudes upon the Second Amendment, will it intrude upon the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment tomorrow?   History has demonstrated that once a government gets involved in society, it rarely releases control of it.  Rather, government tends to embed itself even deeper.

In conclusion, wide-reaching gun control measures penalize and potentially criminalize the good citizens in hope of preventing a few criminals from doing harm. Unfortunately, gun violence is only a symptom of much deeper problems in our society that need to be addressed.  Furthermore, attempting to reduce violence by sweeping gun control measures is a misguided endeavor that assumes the criminal element will start to obey society’s laws.  The answers are not in restricting all people but rather in enforcing those laws already in effect and reducing the elements of motivated suspects, opportune targets, or lack of guardians that promote crime at their juncture. 

About the Guest Author: Eric Peterson

Eric Peterson retired from the Bartlesville Police Department as a Lieutenant after serving with the department for over twenty- three years. Having worked as a supervisor for the past twelve years, he served on each of the police department’s patrol shifts as well as in the Criminal Investigations Division.  While a member of the Department he worked as the police department’s Crime Stopper’s Police Coordinator, Range Master, and Firearm’s Instructor.  His previous duties have also included assignments as the police department’s Training Coordinator, as a member of the Special Operations Team, and as a Field Training Officer.  During his tenure, Eric Peterson was awarded the police department’s Medal of Valor, the Chief’s Award, received recognition from the U.S. Department of Justice, and was credentialed as a Law Enforcement Professional by the National Law Enforcement Credentialing Board.  In August of 2010, he was awarded the Paul D. Boudreau Award by Crime Stoppers International for recognition as the International Crime Stoppers Police Coordinator of the Year.  He actively serves as a Firearms Instructor for C.L.E.E.T. at the State Police Academy as well as on the Executive Board of the Washington County Crime Stoppers.

Eric Peterson obtained his Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Oklahoma Wesleyan University and his Masters in Business Administration from Southern Nazarene University. Currently, he is an assistant professor in the Chesapeake Energy School of Business.