The manner in which the "too soon" argument is being used is getting tiresome to me -- not the argument in and of itself, but the double speak.  When something like yesterday happens, "too soon" gets launched at those that who talk about gun control, but when a terrorist attack happens (like Ambassador Stevens death) many of those same "too soon" individuals don't wait to voice their views about  what should have been done differently and what should happen in the future. When asked about if they are falling under the "too soon" problem, the response is, "it's never too soon to speak up about your values." They then turn around and start using the "too soon" argument against people who are "speaking up about their values" as soon as another shooting occurs. This obviously happens in both directions and is not isolated to either "side" (or any side). Let me be clear about what I'm saying here -- ...

Somehow we tend to possess the impressive ability to create a boogieman that help us feel like we understand terrible, complex situations. This ranges from one side narrating the tale of the evil boogieman missionary that accepts all of the blame for the evils of imperial conquest in the last few centuries... to the story being told by another side today that so many of these bad things happen simply because of the boogieman tale of "God being kicked out of school."In both cases, these scenarios just tend to be convenient for the respective side that benefits from it, while the truth seems to always be more complex. So, just a couple of quick thoughts: Here are some interesting words about the phrase "God was expelled from the public schools in 1962." -- http://bit.ly/RvJ4AD If shootings happen simply because of a court ruling that happened in 1962, then why was there a shooting at a Christian school last April? http://yhoo.it/Hg5H4j I'm against over simplifying...