Democrats are hypocrites
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
tampax:"Did you say that 44 of the 50 States have strong gun ownership provisions in their Constitutions? Why do you suppose that is? It's because the US Constitution permits them to - in fact it permits them to have strong, or even weak gun ownership provisions. The US Constitution leaves such matters as individual gun ownership and related issues up to the States.
That's why you can strap a gun to your hip, and walk down the street in a south western state - but risk being shot were you to try it in most others. That's why you can carry a concealed gun in one state, but not another. That's why you can drive down the highway with a gun in your car, but are not permitted to have one in your home in certain cities, and the District of Columbia."
Not quite right.
Actually, the founders gave Congress constitutional authority
to regulate. But Congress can elect not to regulate or
fully regulate the states. Congress can choose to preempt
states from regulating inconsistently. The federal regulation
of nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
is a well recognized example of preemption.
As for guns... historically, congress has allowed the
sharing of regulation with the state governments.
This is why the gun laws differ so much state to state.
But the fact the federal govt. and 44 out of 50 states secure
and individual right to bear arms, supports my position.
But the import point here is:
You have once again confused reasonable state based
restrictions for the absence of a constitutional right.
Individuals still have the right to bare arms, regardless
of state imposed restrictions.
tampax:As for the NRA "loving" to see the issue reach the Supreme Court - they can file suit this morning. In fact, they could have done so yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that.
And exactly WHAT would they file suit over???
No state has a complete gun ban in the nation, or to my knowledge,
has ever even attempted this.
tampax:And yes, the Attorney General is quite vocal in his support for the Second Amendment - and who better than he to ask the Court for relief for the poor citizens of NYC, or to keep you from having to deal with the restrictions placed on you by your own or other states. He hasn't done so because he knows full well that the Court would side with, for example, the State of New York in granting the city of New York the authority to decide who shall and shall not be armed.
We already know states are allowed to futher restrict differently.
What's your point?
tampax:With all due respect, and at the risk of this sounding like a personal attack, you are too thick headed, and apparently too stupid to have a gun - at least in my humble opinion.
That definitely qualifies as a personal attack.
I expect nothing less from someone who has no case.
tampax:And one more thing, just to set the record straight, Axie. There is no Federal Statute prohibiting one from "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - or even an empty one. It is a phrase used as an example of what might be an exception to Free speech, for God's sake.
Shouting fire in a crowed theatre IS illegal in probably most,
if not all states, which is another example of how a constitutional
right is NOT violated simply because it is restricted at a state level.
---------- In SUMMARY -----------
1) Your original statement:
You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms - your right, such as it may be, is granted and controlled by your state. If you had a Federal Constitutional right, then the answers would all be yes.
Is patently false. I have already shown that further state
restrictions on constitutional rights by the states does NOT
prove that you do not have a constitutional right.
The right to bear arms is granted by the federal, NOT state
government, and the federal government allows the state
governments to further reasonably restrict these rights.
2) You have consistently DODGED supporting your original
big fat empty assertion of:
"tampax:" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
tampax:"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you""
3) You are WRONG about NYC and DC.
NYC and DC *BOTH* allow for the legal possession of rifles AND
handguns. Rifles and shotguns without permits even in NYC!
They do have the most restrictive set of laws, but
they are legally acquirable.
There is NO complete bans of firearms in ANY state in the union.
4) You said:"you are too thick headed, and apparently too stupid to have a gun "
And yet...
a) YOU are the one who has FAILED to make his case.
b) Resorted to personal attacks when you had no case
c) Failed to understand the difference between allowing further
state regulation of firearms, and the constitutional right
to bare arms.
d) Fail to recoginze the the federal consitution,
44 out of 50 state constitutions, and even the Attorney General,
all side with my opinion on the right to bare arms.
I'll take your constant dodging of your original
empty assertions as conceding to this debate.
Or do you care to try and prove them one last time?
Personally... I think THREE STRIKES YOUR OUT says it all.
I know....i'll just leave you to pick up the shattered
pieces of your weak argument off the floor
peace
axeman
That's why you can strap a gun to your hip, and walk down the street in a south western state - but risk being shot were you to try it in most others. That's why you can carry a concealed gun in one state, but not another. That's why you can drive down the highway with a gun in your car, but are not permitted to have one in your home in certain cities, and the District of Columbia."
Not quite right.
Actually, the founders gave Congress constitutional authority
to regulate. But Congress can elect not to regulate or
fully regulate the states. Congress can choose to preempt
states from regulating inconsistently. The federal regulation
of nuclear power plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
is a well recognized example of preemption.
As for guns... historically, congress has allowed the
sharing of regulation with the state governments.
This is why the gun laws differ so much state to state.
But the fact the federal govt. and 44 out of 50 states secure
and individual right to bear arms, supports my position.
But the import point here is:
You have once again confused reasonable state based
restrictions for the absence of a constitutional right.
Individuals still have the right to bare arms, regardless
of state imposed restrictions.
tampax:As for the NRA "loving" to see the issue reach the Supreme Court - they can file suit this morning. In fact, they could have done so yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that.
And exactly WHAT would they file suit over???
No state has a complete gun ban in the nation, or to my knowledge,
has ever even attempted this.
tampax:And yes, the Attorney General is quite vocal in his support for the Second Amendment - and who better than he to ask the Court for relief for the poor citizens of NYC, or to keep you from having to deal with the restrictions placed on you by your own or other states. He hasn't done so because he knows full well that the Court would side with, for example, the State of New York in granting the city of New York the authority to decide who shall and shall not be armed.
We already know states are allowed to futher restrict differently.
What's your point?
tampax:With all due respect, and at the risk of this sounding like a personal attack, you are too thick headed, and apparently too stupid to have a gun - at least in my humble opinion.
That definitely qualifies as a personal attack.
I expect nothing less from someone who has no case.
tampax:And one more thing, just to set the record straight, Axie. There is no Federal Statute prohibiting one from "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - or even an empty one. It is a phrase used as an example of what might be an exception to Free speech, for God's sake.
Shouting fire in a crowed theatre IS illegal in probably most,
if not all states, which is another example of how a constitutional
right is NOT violated simply because it is restricted at a state level.
---------- In SUMMARY -----------
1) Your original statement:
You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms - your right, such as it may be, is granted and controlled by your state. If you had a Federal Constitutional right, then the answers would all be yes.
Is patently false. I have already shown that further state
restrictions on constitutional rights by the states does NOT
prove that you do not have a constitutional right.
The right to bear arms is granted by the federal, NOT state
government, and the federal government allows the state
governments to further reasonably restrict these rights.
2) You have consistently DODGED supporting your original
big fat empty assertion of:
"tampax:" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
tampax:"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you""
3) You are WRONG about NYC and DC.
NYC and DC *BOTH* allow for the legal possession of rifles AND
handguns. Rifles and shotguns without permits even in NYC!
They do have the most restrictive set of laws, but
they are legally acquirable.
There is NO complete bans of firearms in ANY state in the union.
4) You said:"you are too thick headed, and apparently too stupid to have a gun "
And yet...
a) YOU are the one who has FAILED to make his case.
b) Resorted to personal attacks when you had no case
c) Failed to understand the difference between allowing further
state regulation of firearms, and the constitutional right
to bare arms.
d) Fail to recoginze the the federal consitution,
44 out of 50 state constitutions, and even the Attorney General,
all side with my opinion on the right to bare arms.
I'll take your constant dodging of your original
empty assertions as conceding to this debate.
Or do you care to try and prove them one last time?
Personally... I think THREE STRIKES YOUR OUT says it all.
I know....i'll just leave you to pick up the shattered
pieces of your weak argument off the floor
peace
axeman
Axie baby, does the US Constitution guarantee you Freedom of Speech? Yes, indeed it does. Can one or more States alter or restrict that right? No, they may not. Why not? Because the Federal Government guarantees it.
You Have the Freedom of Religion guaranteed to you by the US Constitution. May one or more of the States alter or restrict that right? No they may not. Why not? Because the right to worship as you choose, as with ALL of the other rights guaranteed to you by this marvelous document, may not be altered or restricted by any State law. It has been that way for over two hundred years, and it remains that way today.
When this Nation was founded, there was much distrust of the power of central government. Hence, it was written into the Constitution in the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment) that the various States had the right, the inalienable Constitutional guarantee to keep and regulate what is referred to as a militia. In essence a standing army.
How, and what kind or form that militia would take was left to the States. In fact, all matters not covered by, prohibited by, or guaranteed by the US Constitution are left to the individual States. So long as a State law or provision does not violate a guaranteed right, the various States may enact said laws and provisions free of Federal interference.
An example might be the right to operate a vehicle. There is no right to do so. It is a privilege, and may be arbitrarily granted or withheld by the State. Another example might be the right to charge any amount of rent on a property you own. There is no such right. You have a right to own property, but in several States, the local government can and does "control" the amount you can charge.
Just as the States may arbitrarily determine who may and may not own, conceal, or openly display arms. The State may arbitrarily determine where and where not arms may be carried - such as in a church, a shopping mall, or a place of employment.
No State may unreasonably restrict or prohibit your Freedom of Speech. Nor arbitrarily determine who may or may not speak freely, or what may or may not be spoken about. An example would be the infamous "seven dirty" words forbidden on broadcast facilities. The Federal Government forbids them to be spoken on publicly owned airwaves - but not in public. Nor can the Stats add one or two more. Because Freedom of Speech is not their domain.
Guns, gun usage, and gun ownership are. It is not a wink and a nod relationship of shared power between the States and Congress, as you suggested. You do indeed have a right to keep and bare arms. That right is granted to you in your State Constitution, and may not be rescinded by the Federal Government, unless and until a US Constitutional Amendment is proposed, and ratified by two thirds of the States. The Federal Government can neither grant or rescind your right to own a gun at this time - neither is within their power.
You Have the Freedom of Religion guaranteed to you by the US Constitution. May one or more of the States alter or restrict that right? No they may not. Why not? Because the right to worship as you choose, as with ALL of the other rights guaranteed to you by this marvelous document, may not be altered or restricted by any State law. It has been that way for over two hundred years, and it remains that way today.
When this Nation was founded, there was much distrust of the power of central government. Hence, it was written into the Constitution in the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment) that the various States had the right, the inalienable Constitutional guarantee to keep and regulate what is referred to as a militia. In essence a standing army.
How, and what kind or form that militia would take was left to the States. In fact, all matters not covered by, prohibited by, or guaranteed by the US Constitution are left to the individual States. So long as a State law or provision does not violate a guaranteed right, the various States may enact said laws and provisions free of Federal interference.
An example might be the right to operate a vehicle. There is no right to do so. It is a privilege, and may be arbitrarily granted or withheld by the State. Another example might be the right to charge any amount of rent on a property you own. There is no such right. You have a right to own property, but in several States, the local government can and does "control" the amount you can charge.
Just as the States may arbitrarily determine who may and may not own, conceal, or openly display arms. The State may arbitrarily determine where and where not arms may be carried - such as in a church, a shopping mall, or a place of employment.
No State may unreasonably restrict or prohibit your Freedom of Speech. Nor arbitrarily determine who may or may not speak freely, or what may or may not be spoken about. An example would be the infamous "seven dirty" words forbidden on broadcast facilities. The Federal Government forbids them to be spoken on publicly owned airwaves - but not in public. Nor can the Stats add one or two more. Because Freedom of Speech is not their domain.
Guns, gun usage, and gun ownership are. It is not a wink and a nod relationship of shared power between the States and Congress, as you suggested. You do indeed have a right to keep and bare arms. That right is granted to you in your State Constitution, and may not be rescinded by the Federal Government, unless and until a US Constitutional Amendment is proposed, and ratified by two thirds of the States. The Federal Government can neither grant or rescind your right to own a gun at this time - neither is within their power.
The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the scope of the Second Amendment. Lower federal courts are all over the place. There are numerous cases challenging gun restrictions working their way through the federal court system, including a well-funded effort in Washington, DC, but the Supreme Court is not obligated to take them up for review. If it got to the Supreme Court, I am relatively confident the Bush administration would file an amicus brief taking the view that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right that may not be unduly restricted.
I am a little mystified by tampa's assertion that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Originally the Bill of Rights indeed was interpreted to apply only to the Congress, but the Supreme Court "incorporated" the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. Otherwise, a state legislature could establish a state religion or ban free speech in that state and there would be no recourse, provided the state constitution allowed it.
I am a little mystified by tampa's assertion that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Originally the Bill of Rights indeed was interpreted to apply only to the Congress, but the Supreme Court "incorporated" the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. Otherwise, a state legislature could establish a state religion or ban free speech in that state and there would be no recourse, provided the state constitution allowed it.
By Phil Valentine
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The notion that guns are evil is one of the most dishonest and hypocritical arguments of the left. The fact that Rosie O'Donnell ranted and screamed about banning guns, then employed an armed bodyguard for her kids, should have given any intelligent person cause to distrust the anti-gun crowd. "Whether or not my family is in need of armed guards," she told People magazine, "that doesn't change my position on gun control."
Ironically, Rosie maintained that she and her three children needed protection because of threats made against her as a result of her outspoken stance on gun control. In other words, if she and her family are threatened, then they should be protected with guns. However, if you and your family are threatened, you should not be allowed access to guns. Very nice.
Guns save lives
The gun-haters start with the basic premise that guns are bad. You shouldn't have them in your house because they're dangerous, they say. I should let you know right from the start that handguns are used for protection against criminals in America nearly 2 million times per year. That's up to five times more often than they're used to commit crimes and nearly 128 times the total number of murders in the United States. Those stats alone are good enough to blow any anti-gun argument out of the water, but there's more. According to the National Crime Victimization Surveys, people who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or don't defend themselves at all.
Robert A. Waters chronicled many such stories in his book "The Best Defense" (Cumberland House). In one of the most gripping accounts, Waters tells of a psychotic serial killer who brutalized his victims before killing them. One woman was found dead with a gun shoved in her vagina. Wayne Nance was one of the most sadistic killers in American history, and he attempted to make a couple in Missoula, Mont., Kris and Doug Wells, his 11th and 12th victims. That proved to be his fatal mistake. You see, Nance had chosen a couple who kept guns in the house.
Nance had been stalking Kris, and when Doug surprised him outside the couple's home, the killer shot him in the back of the head. Dazed and bleeding from a deep scalp wound, Doug struggled with his assailant from the garage into the house. Amazed that Doug was even still alive, Nance pounded him with a length of pipe and finally prevailed. After grabbing Kris and tying her to the bed frame in the couple's bedroom, Nance took Doug to the basement and tied him to a post. Doug, a gunsmith by profession, had earlier placed an antique lever-action Savage Model 99G Take-Down rifle near his workbench in the basement. He knew that if he could get to it, he and his wife might have a chance.
Doug had been shot, bound and beaten nearly to death, but Nance still stabbed him in the chest with an oak-handle kitchen knife, puncturing one of his lungs. The killer then left to have his way with Kris, most assuredly intending to kill her afterward, as he had done with so many of his other victims. Somehow, Doug managed to muster enough strength to break loose from the clothesline that bound him. He grabbed the Savage, loaded it, and waited, knowing that if he headed upstairs for the bedroom, Nance would surely use Kris as a shield. Doug banged the butt of the rifle against the wall to get Nance's attention. The ploy worked. Nance raced back toward the basement stairs, and as soon as he came into view Doug let him have it with the Savage.
In the meantime, Kris had managed to free herself except for one arm. Hearing the shot, she feared that Nance had killed her husband. Doug managed to stumble up the stairs, and when he saw the wounded Nance begin to rise, proceeded to pummel him with the butt of the rifle. As Nance crawled toward the bedroom, Doug continued to beat him with the gun until the butt splintered. By then, Nance was in range of the still-tethered Kris, who began to kick and punch him. Nance pulled his gun from its pouch on his belt and fired at Doug, missing him. His second shot caught Doug just above the knee, but Doug kept coming, beating Nance with the barrel of the rifle. In the process, he knocked the lamp off the bedside table, plunging the room into darkness. Doug heard another explosion, and as he lunged for the table where he kept a pistol, he hit the switch for the overhead light. When he grabbed the handgun and trained it on Nance, who lay on the floor convulsing and twitching, Doug saw that the criminal had shot himself.
Wayne Nance died a few hours later. Doug Wells miraculously recovered from his wounds, and his wife, Kris, was not physically harmed. Care to wonder what would have happened had Doug Wells not had a gun in the house? Want to guess how many other innocent victims Wayne Nance might have slain had Doug Wells not killed him? This is but one example of literally millions of times that guns have saved lives, something the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know. But now you do.
Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the anti-gun advocates have been galvanized in recent years by the highly publicized school shootings, which they point to as the reason we need more gun control. That's an emotional response and not one based in fact. These shootings are indeed tragic, and steps must be taken to stop them, but banning guns is not the answer. Actually, banning guns is adding to the problem. Research shows that people who commit these heinous murders have absolutely no regard for any kind of law, much less laws which prohibit them from carrying a gun onto a particular property. The only thing that will stop them is somebody else with a gun.
By now you're probably familiar with the 1997 school shooting in Pearl, Miss. What you may not know, and what wasn't widely reported, is that after the shooting started, an assistant principal ran outside to get his own gun from his automobile, which by law had to be parked 1,000 feet from the school because there was a firearm in it. He then held his gun on the killer, physically immobilizing the shooter before he could cause additional harm. In the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Penn., which left one teacher dead, a citizen who happened upon the scene held a shotgun on the offender while the young man was reloading his gun, preventing him from killing again. The police didn't arrive for another 10 minutes. Yet, the anti-gun crowd screams for more gun control. Thank God someone with a gun was present at Pearl and Edinboro. Imagine how less tragic Columbine could've been if only some responsible citizen with a gun had been there to stop it.
My friend comedian James Gregory, billed as "the Funniest Man in America," puts the school shooting issue in simple terms. He says the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns. They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting. Obviously, guns aren't the problem.
What is particularly confounding is the media's refusal to recognize the role guns play in thwarting crime. At the Appalachian School of Law in January 2002, a gunman killed three people before, as The Washington Post reported, "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." They failed to mention that these students "pounced" after holding a gun on the assailant, forcing the gunman to drop his.
Another account from the Associated Press seems to purposely omit the part about the guys subduing the gunman with their own guns: "Todd Ross, 30, of Johnson City, Tenn., was among the students who were outside when Odighizuwa (the gunman) left the building. Ross said the suspect was holding his hands in the air and dropped the gun at his prompting." The story didn't mention that the "prompting" was done with the business end of a gun. One would have to go out of his way not to report that a gun saved lives at Appalachian School of Law. I guess the truth is too politically incorrect to be printed. Apparently, it doesn't fit some of the leftwing reporters' agenda â an agenda to rid this country of guns. That's really what all this comes down to. If there were not a concerted agenda on the part of many in the news media to rid the United States of guns, you would have equal attention given to other forms of murder. Glaring examples of the double standard can be found in some of this country's most high-profile murders. Something overlooked by many in the so-called "Crime of the Century," the O. J. Simpson trial, was that Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were not murdered with a gun, they were stabbed to death.
That may be an obvious point, but it shifted a lot of the focus. In every high-profile murder case involving guns, you get the usual plea from the gun-snatchers to ban all guns. The Sept. 11 terrorists used box cutters to take over the planes. Where was the outcry to ban knives and box cutters in the wake of those murders?
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The notion that guns are evil is one of the most dishonest and hypocritical arguments of the left. The fact that Rosie O'Donnell ranted and screamed about banning guns, then employed an armed bodyguard for her kids, should have given any intelligent person cause to distrust the anti-gun crowd. "Whether or not my family is in need of armed guards," she told People magazine, "that doesn't change my position on gun control."
Ironically, Rosie maintained that she and her three children needed protection because of threats made against her as a result of her outspoken stance on gun control. In other words, if she and her family are threatened, then they should be protected with guns. However, if you and your family are threatened, you should not be allowed access to guns. Very nice.
Guns save lives
The gun-haters start with the basic premise that guns are bad. You shouldn't have them in your house because they're dangerous, they say. I should let you know right from the start that handguns are used for protection against criminals in America nearly 2 million times per year. That's up to five times more often than they're used to commit crimes and nearly 128 times the total number of murders in the United States. Those stats alone are good enough to blow any anti-gun argument out of the water, but there's more. According to the National Crime Victimization Surveys, people who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or don't defend themselves at all.
Robert A. Waters chronicled many such stories in his book "The Best Defense" (Cumberland House). In one of the most gripping accounts, Waters tells of a psychotic serial killer who brutalized his victims before killing them. One woman was found dead with a gun shoved in her vagina. Wayne Nance was one of the most sadistic killers in American history, and he attempted to make a couple in Missoula, Mont., Kris and Doug Wells, his 11th and 12th victims. That proved to be his fatal mistake. You see, Nance had chosen a couple who kept guns in the house.
Nance had been stalking Kris, and when Doug surprised him outside the couple's home, the killer shot him in the back of the head. Dazed and bleeding from a deep scalp wound, Doug struggled with his assailant from the garage into the house. Amazed that Doug was even still alive, Nance pounded him with a length of pipe and finally prevailed. After grabbing Kris and tying her to the bed frame in the couple's bedroom, Nance took Doug to the basement and tied him to a post. Doug, a gunsmith by profession, had earlier placed an antique lever-action Savage Model 99G Take-Down rifle near his workbench in the basement. He knew that if he could get to it, he and his wife might have a chance.
Doug had been shot, bound and beaten nearly to death, but Nance still stabbed him in the chest with an oak-handle kitchen knife, puncturing one of his lungs. The killer then left to have his way with Kris, most assuredly intending to kill her afterward, as he had done with so many of his other victims. Somehow, Doug managed to muster enough strength to break loose from the clothesline that bound him. He grabbed the Savage, loaded it, and waited, knowing that if he headed upstairs for the bedroom, Nance would surely use Kris as a shield. Doug banged the butt of the rifle against the wall to get Nance's attention. The ploy worked. Nance raced back toward the basement stairs, and as soon as he came into view Doug let him have it with the Savage.
In the meantime, Kris had managed to free herself except for one arm. Hearing the shot, she feared that Nance had killed her husband. Doug managed to stumble up the stairs, and when he saw the wounded Nance begin to rise, proceeded to pummel him with the butt of the rifle. As Nance crawled toward the bedroom, Doug continued to beat him with the gun until the butt splintered. By then, Nance was in range of the still-tethered Kris, who began to kick and punch him. Nance pulled his gun from its pouch on his belt and fired at Doug, missing him. His second shot caught Doug just above the knee, but Doug kept coming, beating Nance with the barrel of the rifle. In the process, he knocked the lamp off the bedside table, plunging the room into darkness. Doug heard another explosion, and as he lunged for the table where he kept a pistol, he hit the switch for the overhead light. When he grabbed the handgun and trained it on Nance, who lay on the floor convulsing and twitching, Doug saw that the criminal had shot himself.
Wayne Nance died a few hours later. Doug Wells miraculously recovered from his wounds, and his wife, Kris, was not physically harmed. Care to wonder what would have happened had Doug Wells not had a gun in the house? Want to guess how many other innocent victims Wayne Nance might have slain had Doug Wells not killed him? This is but one example of literally millions of times that guns have saved lives, something the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know. But now you do.
Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the anti-gun advocates have been galvanized in recent years by the highly publicized school shootings, which they point to as the reason we need more gun control. That's an emotional response and not one based in fact. These shootings are indeed tragic, and steps must be taken to stop them, but banning guns is not the answer. Actually, banning guns is adding to the problem. Research shows that people who commit these heinous murders have absolutely no regard for any kind of law, much less laws which prohibit them from carrying a gun onto a particular property. The only thing that will stop them is somebody else with a gun.
By now you're probably familiar with the 1997 school shooting in Pearl, Miss. What you may not know, and what wasn't widely reported, is that after the shooting started, an assistant principal ran outside to get his own gun from his automobile, which by law had to be parked 1,000 feet from the school because there was a firearm in it. He then held his gun on the killer, physically immobilizing the shooter before he could cause additional harm. In the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Penn., which left one teacher dead, a citizen who happened upon the scene held a shotgun on the offender while the young man was reloading his gun, preventing him from killing again. The police didn't arrive for another 10 minutes. Yet, the anti-gun crowd screams for more gun control. Thank God someone with a gun was present at Pearl and Edinboro. Imagine how less tragic Columbine could've been if only some responsible citizen with a gun had been there to stop it.
My friend comedian James Gregory, billed as "the Funniest Man in America," puts the school shooting issue in simple terms. He says the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns. They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting. Obviously, guns aren't the problem.
What is particularly confounding is the media's refusal to recognize the role guns play in thwarting crime. At the Appalachian School of Law in January 2002, a gunman killed three people before, as The Washington Post reported, "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." They failed to mention that these students "pounced" after holding a gun on the assailant, forcing the gunman to drop his.
Another account from the Associated Press seems to purposely omit the part about the guys subduing the gunman with their own guns: "Todd Ross, 30, of Johnson City, Tenn., was among the students who were outside when Odighizuwa (the gunman) left the building. Ross said the suspect was holding his hands in the air and dropped the gun at his prompting." The story didn't mention that the "prompting" was done with the business end of a gun. One would have to go out of his way not to report that a gun saved lives at Appalachian School of Law. I guess the truth is too politically incorrect to be printed. Apparently, it doesn't fit some of the leftwing reporters' agenda â an agenda to rid this country of guns. That's really what all this comes down to. If there were not a concerted agenda on the part of many in the news media to rid the United States of guns, you would have equal attention given to other forms of murder. Glaring examples of the double standard can be found in some of this country's most high-profile murders. Something overlooked by many in the so-called "Crime of the Century," the O. J. Simpson trial, was that Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were not murdered with a gun, they were stabbed to death.
That may be an obvious point, but it shifted a lot of the focus. In every high-profile murder case involving guns, you get the usual plea from the gun-snatchers to ban all guns. The Sept. 11 terrorists used box cutters to take over the planes. Where was the outcry to ban knives and box cutters in the wake of those murders?
The thing that outrages me about gun control fanatics is that no one is making them own a gun. If they don't want one in their house, I'm certainly not going to insist that they have one. I respect a person who knows their limitations.
But what gives them the right to force me and my family to be defenseless? The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no legal duty to protect you. If they sit and eat donuts while you're being attacked, you have no legal recourse. If your city is run by PC cowards who instruct the police to pull back from confronting rioters, as happened in LA, what do you use to protect your family? Harsh language?
And the real hypocrisy is that many of these gun controllers are the same people who go on endlessly about the "zone of privacy" in the Constitution (invisible ink section), that supposedly keeps the government out of your bedroom and private matters. So why is it the government's business what is in my nightstand or closet?
And why are they so reluctant to punish people who commit crimes using guns? The NRA supports effective penalties for violent criminals. Liberals look for excuses to turn them loose again.
But what gives them the right to force me and my family to be defenseless? The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no legal duty to protect you. If they sit and eat donuts while you're being attacked, you have no legal recourse. If your city is run by PC cowards who instruct the police to pull back from confronting rioters, as happened in LA, what do you use to protect your family? Harsh language?
And the real hypocrisy is that many of these gun controllers are the same people who go on endlessly about the "zone of privacy" in the Constitution (invisible ink section), that supposedly keeps the government out of your bedroom and private matters. So why is it the government's business what is in my nightstand or closet?
And why are they so reluctant to punish people who commit crimes using guns? The NRA supports effective penalties for violent criminals. Liberals look for excuses to turn them loose again.
Swimming pools are maiming a generation of our nations youth. Maybe toddlers should be mandated to take swimming lessons! Compare drownings to accidental shootings.
http://christianparty.net/gunslagr.htm
http://christianparty.net/gunslagr.htm