Let’s regulate GFZs
There are people out there who don’t feel safe because of the Second Amendment and want Gun Free Zones. If you are going to take away the rights of people to defend themselves by creating GFZs, then you should be held responsible for their protection and be held liable if you fail to provide adequate safeguards, and that doesn’t mean putting up a bunch of signs.
I would like to call upon our local, state and federal elected officials to pass laws and regulations that set the rules for creating and maintaining communal and private GFZs. GFZ laws and regulations must provide adequate controls and security, and will do more to protect citizens from illegal gun use than any gun law that restricts the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Justin H. Thompson
Know it all?
On Sept. 19, Bill Cummings describes his critics as owning the entirety of truth without exception. Strong accusation, but I must ask, “Do we?”
Within this context, he then brings us to reality. With a broad stroke, he parallels the Jew and Muslim who never return to their places of worship with the Presbyterian turned Methodist and vice versa. Is this misleading?
It is doubtful any public critics assert absolute ownership to religious truth in totality. With Cummings, I oppose any such claim. Differing opinions exist within historic Christianity and continue. Some are persuaded to withhold water baptism from children until such can intellectually profess faith. Others do not withhold. Some have clear consciences enjoying alcohol in moderation. Others view abstinence as correct. Some believe as world history concludes, certain events will happen. Others’ interpretive framework yields a different version. Do these examples imply no right or wrong answer? No, just that not all error is deadly error. Presbyterians and Methodists share a common faith.
Cummings’ accusation is empty. No single branch of Christendom or denomination has a monopoly on the truth. What really hurts his ears is that deadly error exists, a doctrine historically and presently upheld. Under the guise of promoting a non-dogmatic religion, in actuality he endorses doctrine altogether estranged from Christianity. Cummings intolerantly maintains beliefs no less stringent as those within historic Christian creeds. Do his columns have a general tone of simple questioning as he often states? Or on the contrary, is his tone overwhelmingly didactic?
If insistence that scripture contains absolute religious truth is equivalent to insistence that Santa Claus exists, then why do Cummings’ critics give him obvious concern? From a Christian view, this corroborates with Romans 1.
Nevertheless, I respect Cummings. Not as a theologian or historian, but a man seasoned in life. He has endured tough times yet with resilience presses on.