The only reason I mention this piece is it’s a provocative thought. (which was his objective) And these are his words — Rev Jim Wallis, one who Obama confides in.
I was putting my 9-year-old to bed a few nights ago. He said, “Dad I heard you talking on the phone about guns and the press conference you’re talking at tomorrow. ”
“What do you think about it Jack? What do you think about it Jack?” I asked him.
And here’s what Jack said:
“I think that they ought to let people who, like licensed hunters, have guns if they use them to hunt. And people who need guns — who need guns for their job like policemen and army. But I don’t think that we should just let anybody have any kind of gun and any kind of bullets that they want. That’s pretty crazy.”
I agree with Jack.
– Jim Wallis
(copy paste link -www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-nras-dangerous-theolo_b_2505401.html)
The rest of the article was a type of lecture attacking NRA’s president and others on morality and theology. But he says he agrees with that statement of his 9-year old.
It is a statement from a 9-year old, just like those “letters” of children Obama used in his performance the other day in signing Executive Orders. They are still statements of children. We cannot really criticize the statements of children. (whatever inspired them) Maybe that is the political value of them to the left. They also portray the very innocence the left abandoned long ago.(think Roe v Wade)
But they do represent children’s thinking!
Call me crazy, I also don’t think children should be making the laws or policies, even though at times they might do a better job. Come on. Yea, who wants to argue with or against a 9-year old? Who wants a nation ruled by 9 or 14 year olds? Though I wonder what their view on abortion policy might be?
We are adults and should be a little more intelligent than that. The irony is he criticized Wayne LaPierre for simply suggesting a good person with a gun versus a bad one – or “good” and “bad” persons. Wallis lectured how that is not morally or theologically correct. But then look how a child thinks in his/her naïve innocence, he uses that as his example.
In the 60s you would have been hard pressed to find children who did not want to get rid of “the bomb” or war. Even though doing so does not guarantee a pristine society.
It is idealism on steroids to think just ridding us of guns will rid us of problems, dangers, or dangerous streets. Maybe, as a child might fantasize, we just need a law to outlaw bad and evil. Too bad we didn’t think of that.
No, not to knock any 9-year old’s thinking or idealism, we appreciate it. But they need parents to protect them, a society that doesn’t see them as expendable, and politicians or others who don’t want to extort them or their innocence for political gain either. So let’s put the children in proper perspective. Don’t confuse politics with childhood.
Since he came to office, Obama has been using children to make his case on one policy after another. But the left goes into hysteria when the NRA mentions children in an ad.
Are there any adults in the room?