Category: Life

How Do We Stop This?

At first I had no plans to address the topic of guns and gun control. It’s an extremely volatile and polarizing topic, but also because most of the people I know here have a pretty good idea how I feel anyway.

Then the Aurora movie theater shooting happened, and more recently the Clackamas mall shooting and of course the murder of twenty first graders and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut. I knew there would be a public outcry regarding guns and gun ownership, as if the guns themselves did the killing.

I felt compelled to address a few points, and people can make what they want of it.

The debate is nothing new, after all. People have been talking about gun control probably ever since there have been guns. For crying out loud, you used to have to leave your sidearm with the saloonkeeper while you were drinking and playing cards. Of course, they’d give it back to you when you left…

To my knowledge, it has also always been legal for United States citizens to own firearms. The second amendment to the constitution was adopted in 1791, along with the rest of the bill of rights. The second amendment has long been the rallying cry for gun enthusiasts as it grants them the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Gun control enthusiasts, on the other hand, have often pointed to this section with a little more detail:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

They make the point that there is no longer much call for a “well regulated militia” as our all volunteer armed forces and various law enforcement agencies take care of armed protection. Consequently, people also no longer need firearms to protect themselves at a local level.

I understand their point, and I get that the makers of the constitution were just coming off a war where the “well regulated militia” is what made the difference. These were men with little military experience and often not much training who were willing to put down their plows and pitchforks and take up the musket to ensure their basic human freedoms.

In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the individual had the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as one’s home. This decision took the militia argument out of the equation.

It’s easy to understand the concerns of people regarding firearms, given the terrible acts of violence visited upon our country and others. The Norway massacre comes to mind, as well as shootings in Scotland and Israel over the past 10-15 years.

I get it, I really do. I will even admit that some sort of measures need to be taken to ensure massacres like what happened last week do not become commonplace, though I fear that is where we are headed. Yet I do not believe taking away people’s right to protect their homes and families is the way to make that happen.

It would seem, though, some sort of restrictions as to which weapons and how many of them are available to people might be in order. It’s difficult to understand why a citizen looking to protect themselves would need something like an assault weapon with a potential capacity for more than 100 rounds, semi-auto or otherwise.

Actually, it’s hard to understand why anyone would need an assault weapon at all, excepting military service or zombie apocalypse. Yet, I know people who are avid collectors and have several of them. These men and women are not the people we generally need to worry about.

Legislation only works if people allow themselves to be subject to it. Therefore even if some sort of…all encompassing ban of firearms was to take place, it would only be as effective as the people who obeyed it. And the truth is, if someone is willing to swap their lives for a killing, even if they do not have a firearm they can do a great deal of harm (such as the OKC Federal building a while back).

Of course, there’s also the fact you can’t really enforce legislation directed toward gun-wielding criminals, as well as psycho or sociopaths who might use their weapons for an other than lawful purpose. Also, I don’t think anyone could argue the individuals perpetrating these horrible crimes likely have some moderate to serious issues with mental illness.

The other thing to consider is that while it is people and not guns that kill, it is also hard to argue we’ve created a culture where violence is commonplace and life has so little meaning it has become almost almost arbitrary. Lives are legally ended before they even begin, and the entertainment industry sells violence to our children in shiny and appealing packages so that nothing is shocking anymore.

The dialog may begin with gun control, but it certainly does not end there. It is much more complicated than that. Consider this: People have also been saying gun owners who have firearms to protect their homes are more likely to hurt themselves than any intruder. This is patently false. Of course, it is much less sensational and interesting for the media to report when this sort of thing actually happens, so they often do not report it at all. Take the Clackamas shooting, for instance. A young man legally carrying concealed drew his weapon and faced the shooter, ultimately forcing him into a stairwell where he took his own life.

I believe the truth is that the only thing that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Also that the bad people will always be armed, and do not live by the same rules as the rest of us.

I am a gun owner, and both weapons I have are small caliber. I got them to shoot at targets, not burglars. But I do have them, and I would rather have them than not. If the choice was between using them and harm to my family or anyone, really, I would use them without regret. I would put a hundred bullets into a person intending harm to a child before I would allow them to carry out their intentions.

My weapons are kept safe, and away from my kids. In any case, I know I haven’t answered any questions with this big pile of letters, but I felt the need to address a certain demographic of folks who understand neither guns, nor gun owners.

I have the legal right to possess a firearm, without being a member of a well regulated militia. Those people do, too. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is their affair. Yet I would submit that trying to enforce any sort of blanket restriction is stupid, and very similar to what the country had fought against when the constitution was drafted in the first place.

I will also acknowledge that certain points within the “gun control debate” do need to be addressed. I don’t know what the answers are, but I believe a healthy discourse between all parties is a start.

Some potential topics?

1. Assault weapons, both automatic and semi-auto.

a. Who can have them?

b. Are they needed in the private sector?

c. What for?

2. Round capacity for magazines.

a. What is needed?

b. What is enough?

c. Is anyone going to shoot a deer more than once or twice?

3. What is the criteria for whether or not a person can purchase a gun of any sort? Should there be criteria?

4. What are the repercussions if a gun is used to defend a home? Are “stand your ground” laws the answer?

So many questions, and not many real attempts to find answers as yet.

It needs to start somewhere, and we need to set aside partisan rhetoric in the interest of getting to the heart of the matter and making real and desperately needed changes in the interest of saving lives and preserving freedoms.

So let’s talk, people.

Controversy: It’s not just about chicken

Over the last couple years, there has arguably been no more contentious topic than that of homosexuals and marriage. There were propositions, proposed amendments to the constitutions, protests, boycotts, and much shouting from rooftops from both perceived “sides” of the situation.

Many of the people leaning a little more to the left side of things decry the views of those with a more conservative view of things as archaic and hopelessly out of date. A First century viewpoint on a 21st century issue.

What is typically thought of as the “Christian Right” has been particularly vilified in this regard by the mainstream media as being intolerant to a lifestyle that is now universally accepted by most people.

I wondered how true that was? What about other religions? If Christianity is the chief assailant on homosexual rights then other major religions probably support them, don’t they?

What does Islam say about homosexuality, and by extension gay marriage?

Do they support it?

Not so much. I wonder what would happen if an imam commented against gay marriage? Actually, Louis Farrakhan referred to President Obama’s public approval of gay marriage as “sanctioning what the scriptures forbid.”

Ok…what about Judaism? What does Jewish scripture have to say?

Obviously, the same thing the Christian bible does.

Where does that leave us? With the knowledge that many people of different faiths neither approve of homosexuality and hold it sinless, nor recognize homosexual “marriages” as legitimate unions.

Having said that, I know that at least most Christians that I know who do not recognize gay marriage also do not deny homosexuals in domestic partnerships should be granted the same legal rights as hetero couples who marry.

My point in all of this is not to condemn homosexuals or deny them any basic human rights. I am just pointing out that many people from many walks of life and religions share the beliefs of Christians regarding this extremely volatile issue.

No one is commenting on that. I haven’t seen anything in the clearly very biased media. What I have seen lately is an executive from a privately owned and privately governed, publicly and admittedly Christian principled company being asked a question and giving an answer that should have surprised no one.

Following that answer, this executive has been vilified to the nth degree. Boycotts have been threatened and licensing for new franchises has been threatened.

All by people screaming about tolerance at the top of their lungs, while at the same time practicing their own special brand of intolerance and prejudice.

Lately, I’ve found myself thinking “come, Jesus, come” more than once.
A friend pointed out 2 Timothy 3 to me not long ago regarding the Aurora shootings, but I think it applies here, too. I’d list it below, but I’m writing this on my iPhone.

Go look it up.

Done? Ok. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me how people react to biblical values, when they’re expressed plainly.

The bible is nothing if not clear about what God calls sinful, or lawful, for that matter. Call me whatever you like.

No Easy Answers

I know this guy at work who says he always carries a gun when he’s out and about and isn’t at work (in case anyone who doesn’t know me reads this, I live in Arizona and you don’t need a permit to carry). I never really thought much about it prior to Friday morning, when I heard about what happened in Aurora. I was just a little surprised to hear carrying was legal here–I come from California.

I am fairly certain that in the days and weeks to come the media will feature passionate testimonies from proponents of the right to carry and those who hate firearms above nearly all other things. People will talk about how much our country has become the wild west, and in a sense, it has.

It’s different, though.

Many people now have so little regard for human life taking one probably seems almost mundane. I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing, or something brought on by overexposure to and desensitization from violence through films, music, or video games.

I don’t why this person did what he did. We probably never will, at least not in a way that makes sense.

I do know that God didn’t pull the trigger. James Holmes did. He used legally obtained firearms that were clearly easy for him to get. No one knows what would have happened if he had not had such quick and easy access to guns. Perhaps he would have made a bomb of some sort (Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, and ended up murdering over a hundred people in Oklahoma City a while back).

Inevitably, someone will recommend all guns be outlawed, or something to that effect. This will be countered by defenders of the second amendment.

And all I can think about is my friend who goes everywhere armed. Sure, not everyone is as responsible with their guns as my friend, but I can’t help but think if there’d been a couple people like him in theater 9 the outcome may have been different.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do own a couple of firearms. I have no plans to shoot anything but paper targets with them unless someone tries to harm me or my family.

Yet I wonder what I would do to protect them, and would it be the same if it were strangers in a movie theater?

Would I kill?

When I think about it like that, the answer is yes I would. If someone is willing to swap their lives for a killing, it’s probably the only way you’re going to stop them from doing it.

I think about all the dead and wounded in Aurora at the hands of this dark creature, and I think if I had the chance to do something and did not do it, I wouldn’t ever be able to forgive myself.

I think in that situation, I’d have to put the guy down as quickly as possible.

I don’t think extreme gun control is the answer.

One need only look at what’s been happening in Chicago with the ridiculous murder rate, where there are many hoops to jump through if a person desires to own a gun.

Then look at Arizona. The difference is easy to see. I am not trying to say that carrying a firearm is the answer to crime. I’m only saying that something that could potentially save a life is better than removing even that chance because of some misguided political agenda.

We are in for some tough discussions in the days ahead.

Images

I saw an image today that captivated me. Carlos Whittaker had a great post the other day referencing a picture from the People of the Second Chance website. Go read it.

Ok. If you haven’t looked at it or read the blog, it shows a kind of scruffy young man in his mid twenties looking into a mirror and carving “f—up” into his neck.

A shocking image without question. In his article, Whittaker talks a little bit about his past. He says he’s had moments where he looked in the mirror and saw that exact image.

I know what he means.

20120719-131818.jpg

That image is how I look right now, this very minute. Yet I am not defined by it. You might look at it and think it tells you something about who I am, and that is only partially true.

I look at that picture–or in a mirror for that matter–and I sometimes see the same thing the scruffy young man did. Like Whittaker, I have thought that word

F—up

and much worse about myself over the course of my life. It is only through the intercession of Christ that I know differently. His truth supersedes any lie I might believe about who I am based on how I perceive myself or how others perceive me.

I am not defined by the things I’ve done or that have been done to me.

I am defined by the life, death, and resurrection of a first century Nazarane carpenter.

So when I look in the mirror and see

F—up

Loser

Idiot

Douchebag

Or something worse, the truth is that over those images is the face of Jesus.

His image is greater than any mask we might wear for a time.

His truth is greater than any lie, greater than any label. So before I pass judgement on myself or anyone else, I need to consider the actions of Jesus, taken on my behalf.

And on the behalf of whomever I might consider passing judgement.

Sad and Confused

All I know about Syria right now is what I read in the papers and see on the news, but it seems clear there’s atrocity going on. I don’t know who’s to blame. The government says the rebels are, and the rebels say the same of the government.

Regardless, people are being slaughtered every day.

Now, I wonder what the world is going to do. I wonder what the US is going to do?

There’s been countless images of piles of bodies for months now, and at least from a layman’s point of view, it seems everyone including the US is just watching. Perhaps sending advisors.

I wonder how long it will take for the world to get tired of piles of bodies? It makes me think about wars, and rumors of wars.

Maybe the end is drawing near. I don’t know.

I do know that every time I see a dead child with a bullet hole in his/her face it makes me want to do something.

Right now all I can do is pray.

Pray for a resolution to the violence.

Pray for wisdom for my country’s leadership, and the leadership of other countries contemplating assistance to Syria in some capacity.

Pray for peace in a place that seldom sees it.

Pray for understanding on my own part. I just don’t understand this little regard for human life.

All I know is something has to happen, and quickly. This is not a war-this is wanton murder.

On Penn State, and Protecting Your Camp

I read an article on CNN this morning that was talking about the utter failure of Penn State to protect children from Jerry Sandusky when they were well aware of his fondness for raping young boys.

Apparently, the image of the school and its storied football program was much more important than the physical harm, sexual abuse, and irreversible psychological damage done to a series of boys over something like a decade.

This is so hard to get my mind around. These men knew what Sandusky had done and could potentially still do. And they did nothing. Marine and blogger “America’s Sgt Major” wrote a great piece back in 2011 just as the story was becoming nationally prominent.

Let me be as clear as I am able. As a believer, I am well aware of the measure of forgiveness dealt to me, and I am grateful for it. As a man who is a father, and is not a pedophile, I think of it like this:

If I was camping with my family and a bear was threatening the camp, I would take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of my family. If a member of my family was somehow hurt, then typically the bear would be captured and possibly destroyed.

Or you could consider what would happen to a dog that bit ten people.

Either way, the animal would no longer be a threat. The men at Penn State had a chance to prevent a lot of pain and they pissed it away out of self-preservation.

I know that as a follower of Christ I should forgive Sandusky and pray for him, that he might repent of his many sins.

I struggle with that. Some things–as a man and father–are difficult if not impossible to forgive.

Now, thankfully, Jerry Sandusky is reaping what he has sown. He is no longer a threat. And he will likely be a marked man wherever he is incarcerated.

Now I find myself thinking not that I hope he turns to Christ, but that he meets a very special friend in prison that will show him what it feels like to be a victim.

I know it’s wrong to feel that way, but I am a human being. I think of the DC Talk song “In The Light.”

This only serves to confirm my suspicion
That I’m still a man in need of a savior

Lo Siento

I read today that Paula Deen was not going to have her contract renewed on the Food Network because she used the N word in the past.

Really?

Having read some remarks from Deen on the matter, it seems the word was uttered many moons ago. Given her age and where she was from, it would probably have been unusual not to use that word from time to time.

I don’t know what the context of her usage was–nothing I read mentioned it. Only that she’s had quite a few miles on her odometer since it happened. She’s already offered what seems to be a very sincere apology–for a sin of the past.

It got me thinking–who hasn’t said something hateful in the past. I’ve used the F word for homosexuals in the past. I don’t think I’ve said the dreaded N word very much at all, except to repeat something someone else said.

What I’ve been thinking about is what gives me or anyone else the right to cast the first stone in regard to Paula Deen? Who hasn’t said something of that nature in some context at some time?

Sure, it’s offensive. And it would have been whenever it was she said it, too. I say let the past be the past, unless you can look me in the eye and tell me you’ve never said anything hateful.

And how sensitive are you if you’re offended by something someone said long ago enough that you’ll fire them for it? That demanding an apology thing? Cracker, please.

Soon it will be at the point where if I say habanero salsa is too darn hot and burns on the way out, then habanero growers will demand I apologize for calling their peppers hot, and my posterior will demand an apology for eating the darn salsa in the first place.

Enough about my posterior.

My point is that we are all entitled to our opinions, and provided they are not deliberately hurtful or slanderous, then I believe the constitution grants me the right to voice them without some over-sensitive drama queen demanding an apology.

No offense to drama, queens, or sensitive people. Just saying.

So if I want to say something like most of the liberal people I know are pompous, self-righteous, condescending toolbags when talking about politics I should be able to say it without calling some radio show to say my remarks were taken out of context and I didn’t mean to offend liberals or toolbags.

People need to get over being so thin-skinned. Because the truth is, when people offer that sort of “apology,” what they’re really saying is “Hi! You’re an a-hole, and I was right the first time.”

It’s like when you make your kids say “sorry,” and then hug it out. Everyone knows statements made under duress aren’t legally binding.

So we have freedom of speech, but we can’t speak our minds for fear of offending someone and having to apologize.

Let me close by saying I didn’t mean it that way if I offended you during the writing of this diatribe. Let’s hug it out.

Scars

I knew this girl a while back that used to cut herself. I didn’t really get it at the time–it kind of freaked me out, to tell you the truth. It wasn’t until much later that she explained it to me as it was a way for her to control something–some part of her life, because the rest of it was sort of a whirlwind.

I didn’t get how slicing her flesh offered her any measure of relief, but she actually seemed happier when she was doing it than when she wasn’t. It wasn’t until much later on in our rather complicated relationship that I saw the latticework of scars on her arms and legs. It took her a long time to show them to me, and she did the best she could to always hide them.

But once I saw them, I always knew they were there.

A month or so ago, I heard a song on the radio that finally gave me some measure of understanding of this girl, and her need to harm herself.

I think the song is called “Scars,” by Jonny Diaz, and the refrain goes “Praise God we don’t have to hide scars.”

The girl I knew thought she needed to hide her scars from me and the world because once we saw them we would either turn away in horror, or keep looking, and either pity her or think she was off her gourd. Either way, we would look at her differently, and never the same afterward.

She didn’t know she could trust me not to look away, until one day she did. I wanted to cry the first time I saw the scars, but I couldn’t allow myself to do it. Instead I just looked, and said something like “I’m sorry you had to do that.”

I think it’s the same with Jesus.

We don’t want to trust Him with our scars, because they hurt, or because they’re ugly, and we know that if we show them to Him, he’ll look at us differently afterward. Or maybe we feel like He’ll hurt us more once He knows what we’ve done to ourselves, or what’s been done to us by others.

The bible promises us that isn’t true. Isaiah 42:3 says “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.”

I think that’s so true.

He sees us in our brokenness, and He sees our scars. He wept for us before we knew Him, and he weeps still, that we hurt.

But a bruised reed He will not break.

I don’t know if that girl I used to know ever trusted Jesus with her scars. It may be she did, and if that happened I praise God for the healing He undoubtedly brought her.

He can bring that healing to you, just as He brought it to me (anyone with a bunch of time to kill is welcome to peruse my blog if you want more details about any of that).

Just know you don’t have to hide your scars, not from Jesus, and not from the people you love.

Praise God we don’t have to hide scars…

To the mothers in my life…

I have been really fortunate to have some amazing mothers in my life. It’s Mother’s day today, so I was thinking about them, and I just wanted to take a moment to recognize them and offer my very sincere thanks to all they have meant in my life.

Lila Wilkins, my mom, for showing me that it is never too late.

My sisters, Lee Ann Franc, Valorie Ausen, and Debbie Wilkins, for taking care of me, and showing me how women deserve to be treated.

My mother in law, Linda Whitson, for taking care of my boys, and teaching my wife how to be a great mother herself.

My wife, my friend, and my love, Jennifer Wilkins. For giving me two spirited and wonderful boys, and for being yourself, always.

I love you, baby.

The Gray Haired Man

We stopped at the Circle K on 24th Street and avenue B on the way home from Sunday dinner at Ken & Linda’s place last night. I had a paper to write on the Passion Week and knew I’d be up a little later than usual and would need a caffeine boost so I’d be able to retain my usual literary standard of mediocrity.

We pulled up in front of the store and I could see a few customers in line as I got out of Jen’s car. One of them was a sixty-something older gentleman with long, dirty gray hair and a straggly beard. He was an obvious homeless man by the look of him. I didn’t see what he bought, and I didn’t see him leave the store as I walked in.

I got Jen and I some drinks and as I turned to pay, I could see he was gone. David came into the store just then and told me Jen told him to come and tell me there was a man on the sidewalk outside and I should get him something.

I said OK, and stepped out of line.

I grabbed a sandwich and bottle of water from the cold case as I stood and talked to David.

“Mom said he was by the pay phone,” he said, “but I didn’t see him.”

I wondered how many other people hadn’t seen him? I probably would not have if David had not come into the store. I told David to go back to the car and I would be there in a minute.

I stepped outside and the gray haired man was sitting cross-legged on the sidewalk next to the pay phone, holding an almost-empty bottle of water. He was looking left-to-right, right-to-left and muttering unintelligibly to himself.

I crouched down in front of him and handed him the bag with the sandwich and the water. “I thought you might want something to eat.”

He looked at me almost like he was angry, and continued the muttering and whispering and darting his head back and forth. Jen told me later the woman in the car next to us told her the gray haired man “didn’t like people to help.”

“My name is Tom,” I said. He looked at me for a second and stopped muttering. He held out his hand. I shook his hand and noticed he had lesions of some kind on his face.

“I knew a guy named Tom once,” he said clearly. Then he went back to scanning and muttering.

I listened for a moment to see if he’d say anything else I could understand, and he just looked back and forth, back and forth.

“I have to go,” I said. I wished him God’s blessing and got back into Jen’s car.

As we backed out, we could see him take the cap from the new water bottle and pour a little on the sidewalk. I told Jen we used to do that if or when someone died. We’d pour out a little beer and say, “for absent friends.”

I wondered if the gray haired man poured water for an absent friend, or if he had a friend at all. Either way, I was glad I’d spoken to him, and shook his hand.

Whatever clouded his head had cleared long enough for him to reach out his hand to mine. He’d understood me, and had spoken to me so I could understand him.

He’d known a guy named Tom once. And now again.

It occurred to me once again I have not arrived yet where I need to be. I should not have needed my wife or my son to tell me someone needed help. I need to pray for better vision, and eyes to see.

I need Jesus to break my heart for what breaks his.

I plan to do my best to see people from now on, least of these or otherwise.

Everyone deserves to be seen.