Reporters will pen virtually unlimited words trying to define the tragedy that took place this past Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. They’ll do a yeoman’s job at defining who, what, when, where, and how. But the best they’ll be able to do concerning WHY is speculate.
Commentators will descend upon us as well. And as always, they will take advantage of an implied literary license to include their unsolicited opinions. Some of them—most of them, I suspect—will be thoughtful; others will amount to mindless drivel.
The art of good commentary is the consistent ability to put to words what a lot of people are thinking. I don’t know about my effectiveness at doing this; however, effort-wise, I’ve put tons of words to a lot of stuff over my years on this planet.
But this tragedy is so deep that I can’t begin to put words to it. Since the story broke last Friday, I’ve not been able to even think about it without letting myself wallow in a pit of anger so intense that I tremble.
I’m not even going to try—at least not at this point. But I think that a few things—unrelated, so to speak, to the emotional hell of it all—need saying and I’m going to say them. If you’re interested, read on; otherwise stop reading now.
First, let me put a popularly bantered-about term, JUSTICE, to rest. It is NOT an absolute; it never has been. There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE JUSTICE, especially in cases involving the intentional or accidental killing of innocent people.
Justice would involve forcing perpetrators to restore things to the way they were the moment before the crime and punishing them for their trouble. But whenever a crime involves the killing of innocents—at ALL ages, but especially young children—this is impossible.
Suppose the police had taken this murderer alive—I won’t even mention his name here—so that the state could charge and ultimately convict him on 26-counts of first degree capital murder.
We can execute a murderer only ONCE! But even if we could somehow carry it out on this clown 26 times—once for each charge—it still would not result in JUSTICE, only REVENGE.
But the legitimately righteous in this nation—that’s all of us law-abide-rs—can’t seek REVENGE and simultaneously claim the moral high ground. So we’re stuck with calling it justice.
But like many of you readers, whenever it comes to especially egregious circumstances, the human in me is quite willing to accept REVENGE as an impeccably good substitute for JUSTICE. And this is ONE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES!
The second thing I want to emphasize is my lack of faith in the notion that some cosmic arbiter of justice is making sure that the unrighteous among us get what’s coming to them.
As long as I remain alive, I will be the last person to deny, in absolute terms, that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Divine Being created and maintains any sort of order among the creatures of EARTH.
But I will just as readily tell you that I’m light years from being convinced that such a BEING exists. But this is irrelevant! A narcissistic mentally ill-wired nut job committed this despicable act and he’s now dead.
In my opinion, he’s not burning in a place called hell; he’s back to where he was prior to his daddy’s sperm hitting his mother’s egg, OBLIVION. He no longer exists.
And as supportive as notions to the contrary are to our sense of revenge, I remain unconvinced that our concepts of Heaven and Hell are based on anything more than wishful thinking. But, as ALWAYS, I could be wrong about it!
Finally, over the next several weeks in particular, we’re going to be beset by opposing hissy fits between gun control advocates and their pro-gun counterparts. It’s an inevitability of such horrendous gun-related crimes.
For the record, I am all FOR law-abiding citizens arming themselves. The U. S. Supreme Court agrees as well. But, like 80% of this nation, I realized that not EVERYONE qualities.
We need to actually enforce the need for background checks and firearm registration. But this is not going to happen until we get the politicians out of the gun lobby’s hip pocket.
I own guns, both rifles and handguns. But until we start enforcing some reasonable restrictions on assault rifles and 30/50 round ammo clips, we’ll continue the horror of more Sandy Hooks.
We’re never going to eliminate all of them because there is no adequate defense against the randomness with which pure nutcases kill people. But we can minimize those occurrences without unduly restricting the gun rights of law abiding citizens.
And for the truly paranoid among us who think that automatic assault rifles in the hands of every U. S. citizen will prevent the government from disarming the nation if they wanted to do it, think again.
We’re about to enter the year 2013! The federal government, as well as virtually every state government, possesses anti-personnel weapons capable of disarming us in blocks the size of large cities.
No need to use nuclear weapons for the chore. I’ve actually seen some small-scale demonstrations; these antipersonnel weapons are very effective.
Used properly on a massive scale, it would take upwards of three days for people to recall their own names, let alone relocate their automatic assault weapons!