RSS
On Second Amendment Thought...
"RICHMOND, Va., Aug. 29 — A state panel has sharply criticized decisions made by Virginia Tech before and after last April’s shooting massacre, saying university officials could have saved lives by notifying students and faculty members earlier about the killings on campus."
And what, you ask, might a few students or faculty members exercising their Second Amendment rights have done to save lives? Don't be silly. The campus was a "No Gun Zone" where only mad men are permitted to have firearms.
And what, you ask, might a few students or faculty members exercising their Second Amendment rights have done to save lives? Don't be silly. The campus was a "No Gun Zone" where only mad men are permitted to have firearms.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:13 AM
17 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I didn't say he had permission. I said he was "permitted," to have them, and in so far as nobody did much of anything to prevent this particular madman from getting them, that's certainly true.
Law abiding and armed citizens prevent tens of thousands of crimes in this country every year. They have stopped men on murderous rampages and without killing innocent bystanders.
It is liberal kant that if firearms trained college students and or professors were allowed to carry guns there would be a shooting on campus every other day.
States that have passed "shall issue" laws when it comes to concealed gun carrying permits, have not seen an increase in accidental or intentional shootings from those who are permitted to carry.
Such evidence, however, is ignored by anti-gun groups because it doesn't fit in neatly with their paranoid view that guns are bad and gun-owners are worse.
Liberal kant -Lol!
How is it that towns are forbidden to enact their own anti- “illegals” laws while a handful of gun-fearing Liberals are permitted to blatantly violate citizens’ constitutional rights on college campuses, thereby rendering them unable to defend themselves?
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Diano:
You are an idiot of the highest order. John Lott has produced some very good studies showing that an armed society is a polite society. If you have your way, only the police, military, and criminals will have guns. I guess you didn't read C. Scott Shields' excellent article on the reasons to not have gun control. Who are you going to sue if your family is victimized by a gun toting criminal and the police don't come and save your sorry butt?
This comment has been removed by the author.
David:
First, most police officers SUPPORT the individual right to be armed. After all, the overwhelming majority of all americans are not criminals.
Also, as for gang members, society would be a safer place if gang members and drug dealers were taught proper marksmanship since most of their shootings of each other result in serious injuries and not death, and the rest of us law abiding citizens pick up the tab for their medical care.
It's interesting reading comments about gun violence from a few grown-up little boys sitting in front of their computers arguing about who's right and who's wrong. My question is: Who's DEAD? The lack of humanity in all of your arguments is pathetic. It's nice to read articles published by highly skilled writers which display concrete knowledge on the subject. But how many of you have actually lived through something like this? How many of you as a child watched your mother suffer for years after having seen her 11-year-old daughter lying nearly dead in a pool of blood in what was a safe neighborhood? She was shot, and quickly died, by a man who was drunk and thought his gun didn't have any bullets in it. She was walking over to a friend's to borrow a book shortly after school. Yes, he probably has the right to own a gun today because he spent less than a year in jail. That's his right. It's your right. But it's also my pain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
And now you’re trying to magically create new rules for gun ownership??
Here’s the thing(s)… Our Rule Book clearly states “…shall not be infringed”. Ya got that so far? It’s pretty clear. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Constitution goes even a step farther and states that “…shall not be questioned”. So technically, by your even so much as questioning others rights to own guns you are in violation of our State Constitution, Dave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Who’s talking about cannons and nukes? “Arms” can be carried.
The line about Militias is not the “gotcha!” you gun-grabber Libs like to pretend it is. It does not open the door to all your extraneous interpretations. Sorry.
October 2001 a court ruled that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms for purposes unrelated to military service. In the case United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:
"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."
And more recently the SC supported this interpretation. (But it’s late and I didn’t feel like finding the ruling quote.)
Tell us, Dave, if you hate guns so much why don’t you tell the world about it? Why don’t you post a sign on your front lawn declaring your house a “Gun-free home”?
This comment has been removed by the author.
It appears you have a vested interest in the mentally unstable owning guns, but I'd rather you didn't get one.
Lol. This was actually rather funny. Congrats on your first time.
So what you’re saying is you enjoy the implied protections of the 2nd Amendment without ever actually owning a gun and while arguing to deny others’ the right. A little hypocritical, wouldn’t you say? I would. No, all you gun grabbers should stand behind your beliefs and let the criminal world know that you have no guns in your home. It’s the right thing to do …had you guys any honor or integrity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Again with the race. You Libs are a trip.
If race has any place in this discussion it would be that the majority of folks who seem unable to own guns responsibly would be urban black males. (How much of a PC joke was it to even debate the “profiling” of “Stop and Frisk” when 99% of the murderers are black males?) Maybe we just need to outlaw them having guns? I mean, why trample the rights of everyone for the irresponsible actions of 5% of the population, right? What’s that you say? That would be unconstitutional? Well, I figured that while we were wantonly picking and choosing which rights to respect and which to disregard, we may as well actually solve a problem, right?
Oh, and tell us, how is all that military heavy artillery going to protect, say, the law abiding folks in Philly with its murder rate what it is?
And please stop with the strawmen of the NRA and the Gun Industry. Many reasonable tax paying and voting citizens such as myself are opposed to your gun-grabbing efforts more than they are. We will not permit a small but vocal band of gun-fearing Liberals to decide how we can protect our loved ones. We saw what happened at Virginia Tech when Libs were permitted to decide such things. The Lib administrators who enacted that campus gun ban should be charged with enabling mass murder.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home