In the Fort Worth area, there have been recent breakins by people stealing firearms from gun shops.
There have been a rash of break-ins at gun shops across the Ft. Worth area. They've stolen handguns, rifles and shotguns, and also firearms that the press are likely misreporting as 'assault rifles' (I saw misreporting because I can't think of a single time that anyone in the press have said "assault rifles" and it ended up ACTUALLY being an assault rifle.... since they are largely illegal to own or have if they are TRUE assault rifles, unless you go by the media definition of 'assault rifle' which is any non-handgun with a black finish.)
Apparently the tactic is to drive a (stolen) truck or suv into the building, then make off with the firearms. Amazing that, despite the laws regarding who can own a firearm, and the stiff penalties for having a firearm when you're not allowed... somehow... doesn't keep criminals from wanting to get their hands on firearms.
Despite STIFF penalties, they still want them and get them.
But don't worry America, the liberals and Democrats are working hard to make sure that you can't have a firearm, either by making it outright illegal to own unless you're going to be their personal bodyguards (case in point, Rosie hates guns and thinks they should be illegal, but has armed bodyguards for her protection.), or by making it very expensive to own a firearm, so the common person cannot (vie requirements for expensive safes and fines and criminal charges for being the victim of gun-theft.)
Don't worry, Lance, Hillary will personally protect us.
Her ego alone is enough to catch and collect any bullets propelled in her general direction.
Heh. I'll protect myself, thank you. Hillary works hard to make sure that SHE becomes rich and royalty, to hell with the rest of us.
All hail Queen Hillary!
I'll keep my guns and knives thank-you-very-much.
What next, they make Dobermans illegal?
in some cities, pit bulls are illegal to own.
Pretty soon we'll just have harsh language to defend ourselves...
except in NYC, where they're wanting to ban "Bitch" and "Ho"
AKC and Santa are in trouble.
LOL.
NYC is a minefield. I avoid going down there, especially at this time of year. You are just asking for trouble.
Well, it is a good thing they don't let you carry a concealed firearm. You might accidently hurt someone or something try to kill you.
That's true.
It would be terrible if I killed a potential rapist before he actually deposited his sperm inside me.
well, remember, you're not a victim until he's done raping you.
so I guess you just need to lay back and enjoy the justice that will come when you go through hte months long process of a trial in hopes that a lawyer doesn't screw up and he gets off on a technicality or, in best case senario, have to spend a few years in jail.
or go with my way. When they try to rape you. . . Shoot them.
about it.
Under no circumstances should you ever take the word of a woman who claims rape -- there MUST always be physical evidence. Under no circumstances should you acquit any woman simply because she claimed the man was going to rape her -- there must always be collaborating evidence.
There are too many men's lives who were ruined because women claiming rape automatically gets sympathy. There are too many murders committed but the woman claimed rape afterwards.
Insist on evidence. Only when you find such, then and only then can you claim someone is a victim.
Yeah, it is always better that things be clean cut in a court of law than for a woman to avoid being raped by defending herself.
lawyers and judges' opinions are WAY more important than the innocence and life of a woman about to be raped.
And you on the left call conservatives cold and heartless. . .
Liberals think that anyone claiming themselves to be a victim should be thought of as victims. This goes for race relations, welfare, etc. But like with race relations, it often only goes one way. Minorities who claim to be victims are victims, but white people who claim to be victims are not.
Now, you think all women who claim to be victims are victims abd they get automatic sympathy. Yet, maie victims are never automatically believed without a much greater burden of proof. I suggest you stop thinking like a liberal on this one.
You've never been the conservative one. I hate to break it to you.
I'm not talking about people who scream rape to cover for murder. I'm talking about women who are being attacked by a rapist, and wanting to defend themselves from said rapist.
once again, you are trying to defend the rapist from someone wanted to defend themselves, making the woman into a criminal.
Without clear cut proof, how can you tell one from the other?
It isn't my job to. It is the woman's job to defend herself from a rapist attacking her.
You aren't a conservative when you suggest that women shouldn't be able to defend themselves from rapists because some of them might not actually be rapists.
We're not talking about a court of law, we're talking about defense against attack. Once again, your opinion is narrowminded. So narrowminded that you're even convinced that you're taking a conservative stance.
But, in the end, your stance would be greatly appreciated by Stalin. Lots of raped women in Soviet Russia who couldn't defend themselves by law, and the courts didn't much care about them because they couldn't sufficently prove they had been raped.
I don't say that women shouldn't be able to defend themselves. I only say no one should ever be allowed to carry a gun. If a woman worries that much about rape, get defensive training and run.
And on a wholly diffeent tanget: IF a shooting does occur, and there is a claim of rape, there must be clear cut proof.
Your combination of two unrelated topics shows the weakness of your arguments. You say the fact that I don't want people toting their guns around must mean I want women to be raped. Whereas what I really am saying is that I don't want women to be raped AND I don't want women to carry around guns.
Wow, you haven't really spoken with anyone who's been raped have you?
More often than not, you really can't run. They have you trapped, or they grab you and toss you into a car or a bedroom or an alley.
More often than not, the rapist is able to EASILY overpower the victim.
running isn't an option. Pulling out your concealed carry pistol and shooting the attacker is.
As for your stances.... Often times, as engkatiemarie can attest to, the difference between a victim and a person who managed to NOT be a victim is the pull of a trigger.
Go spend time with raped women before you tell me that they can just 'run away'
You have no clue. Yet you live in this protected bubble of a world in which anyone legally carrying a firearm are just as dangerous, if not more, than a rapist.
People legally carrying a firearm ARE dangerous.... to criminals that prey upon them.
YOU.... and those lefties like you.... only defend the criminal. Never the one trying to NOT become a victim.
No matter how often, or how many ways, you try to deny that or skirt that issue, it always comes down to you holding the rights of the criminal over that of the innocent the criminals prey on.
He's talked to me.
And he still does not understand.
I chalk it up to ignorance, the worst sort, the kind where you choose to be ignorant because you'd rather that than acknowledge the truth.
You ask for impunity for any and all crimes related to rape. I say it must be proven, otherwise, anyone killing anyone else without such proof must be sent to jail.
So it is a crime to shoot someone trying to rape you?
There, you've said it. If you shoot someone trying to rape you, you ought to go to jail if you can't 'sufficiently prove' that you're innocent.
Don't you know that we are innocent until proven guilty? It is your job to prove that she WASN'T acting in self-defense, you ninny.
Proof. Proof. Proof. Proof. Once again, proof.
Under no circumstances should a person ever be automatically believed. NONE WHATSOEVER. Unfortunately, this may involve getting some innocents in jail, but people lie, OFTEN. And without proof, we do not
Don't you know that we are innocent until proven guilty? It is your job to prove that she WASN'T acting in self-defense, you ninny.
Think about that for a moment. Should we automatically believe the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case? Think about how that worked out.
You're still talking about court.
I'm talking about a woman, being attaced by a rapist, trying to tear off her pants so that he can rape her.
All you can talk about is how it'd look in court.
Forget court. Shoot the Rapist when he tries to Rape you.
It is better to be in jail for shooting a rapist than to be a rape victim too afraid to defend yourself for fear of legal issues.
You're trying to could the issue and move the goalposts by only talking about liars, and NOT about the victims of rape that did not HAVE to be victims of rape, but were unable to protect themselves because of gun control laws like the ones you support, which protect the RAPIST and not the victims.
How so? I ask criminals to be disamred out in public, and non-criminals to be disarmed out in public. I also ask any who remain armed to get a long sentence, possibly even a life sentence depending on teh person.
Lefties like yourself who have a victim mentality really need to grow up.
You keep leaving out an important fact:
Criminals do not give up their weapons.
Virtually all criminals do things for a purpose, almost always financial. They will not do a stupid thing like carrying a gun around if doing so puts you away for life, for instance. In fact, getting put away for life is so scary for crminals that people on their third strike sometimes commit suicide by cop rather than be put in jail.
We already covered this, yesterday.
Jailtime is already very stiff for illegal ownership of firearms. Felons with a firearm in my state get HUGE jailtime, plus extra jail time per round on their person or with them.
Yet, there are still people illegally possessing firearms and using them in crimes.
You know what keeps a criminal from illegally using a firearm in a crime spree? If, during his first mugging or first attempted rape, he is shot by a citizen legally carring a firearm.
I want criminals disarmed in public, and laws exist to do so, but they don't follow them, no matter how severe that law is.
Get EVERY criminal disarmed, THEN we'll discuss me not carrying legally.
and, someone named 'leftfield' who believes in universal healthcare and thinks that spanking misbehaving children is abuse calling ME a 'lefty' is really a joke.
If I'm a 'lefty' who do you consider a conservative?
I want criminals disarmed in public, and laws exist to do so, but they don't follow them, no matter how severe that law is.
This is patently untrue and you know it. The NRA fights to keep laws off the books that would put too harsh a penalty on gun possession, even for criminals. They will never allow a 15 year sentence for gun possession..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
for ILLEGAL gun possession, in my state, it can already get HIGHER than 15 years.
How many times does that need to be said before you'll stop sugesting that 15 year sentences will somehow work?
IT DOESN'T WORK!
And, the NRA has actually supported MANY gun laws that increased punishment for illegal gun use or possession.
It is a myth of lefties like you that the NRA opposes gun laws. They oppose gun laws that punish LEGAL GUN OWNERS.
To you, however, there is apprently no difference.
You are so transparent and obvious in your socialist rants that I really sometimes doubt that you actually do own a firearm.
Give the make and model of your firearm, along with a picture you've taken of that firearm, or I will hold that you do not own a firearm and are, instead, lying about the gun ownership in an attempt to make yourself look sensible.
No state has a law that would get a criminal 15 years for a first offense while carrying a gun. NONE. And the NRA does NOT support any first offence that would carry a stiff prison sentence.
You can call me a liar if you wish, but it doesn't make it true.
any felon possessing a firearm gets BIG jail time, including extra jail time per round found with them.
Any gun used in a crime gets extra jail time as well.
Carrying a gun without a legal concealed carry permit gets jail time.
you're still wrong, no matter how you try to dodge it.
Now you're moving the goalpost trying to say "First Offense"
Go away, liberal, moving goalposts, and criminalizing people wanting to defend themselves from attackers isn't going to make you very popular on my blog threads.
There would be a lot less rapes if a lot more women made a habit of shooting rapists. Too bad that women are more likely to be anti-gun then men. A little petite woman is as tough as the biggest guy when she has a .38 in her hand and has been trained to properly use it..
My understanding is that if you are going to shoot somebody it is important to make sure you kill them dead or they can cause you a lot of trouble later in court. Justice is sweetest when it is dished out in the heat of the moment and the criminal gets what they deserve with no opportunity for appeal.
I always love it when a criminal gets their justice on the spot. Not long ago I read about a thief that tried to break into a house by crawling down a chimney. First he got stuck and then he got cooked. I laughed my ass off. I think he won a Darwin Award.
Many women are somewhat afraid of firearms. However, I've seen many women who, once they fired a few rounds, became VERY pro-firearm.
It is true that when a woman would be otherwise wholly overpowered by an attacker, a firearm tilts the balacne back in the favor of the innocent over the criminal. I always support that balance.
now, I don't condone shooting someone until they are dead, for moral and legal reasons. I do condone expecting to kill someone everytime you reach for your firearm in a self-defense situation. I do condone shooting TO kill.
However, once the forward aggression stops, so do you. (Even if they run away, but throw a knife at you... shoot. Though they're moving away from you, their attack is coming at you. but if they turn tail and run, don't shoot.)
Shooting in self-defense and 'shooting until dead' are not the same thing. One implies the protection of yourself, even if it means the death of another, and the other implies some measure of revenge.
Revenge isn't what concealed carry firearms or self-defense is about.
Continuing to shoot until they are dead is part of self-defense.
I've read many stories about criminals who were shot but not killed in the act of committing a crime. They go on to sue their victim and even if they don't win, the victim is out beau coup legal fees defending themselves
In case you missed it, "defending" is the operative word in that last paragraph. Our legal system is crazy. Dead criminals don't sue.
Continuing to shoot until they are dead is part of self-defense.
Eh, that is situational. I'm not fond of the image produced of someone shooting someone who is still trying to run away. If there is no aggression towards you, or reasonable thought that deadly force is aimed at you, you don't need to keep shooting.
And criminals do sometimes sue, but if you shoot someone in self-defense, you are put before an investigative board or grand jury and your self-defense status is quickly determined. If it is ruled a Self-defense, the criminal has no legal ground to sue you.
It CAN happen, but shooting someone to avoid a lawsuit isn't self-defense.
Dead criminals don't sue.
No, but their families and the state can... and if you plug someone with a dozen holes before they die, it easily looks like 'overkill' . . . which works against you in a self-defense shooting hearing.
I hate guns, all they do is cause trouble.
will only cause more trouble.
no, guns don't do anything except cause a chain reaction to fire a round.
The gun user is the one who can cause trouble.
And yes, some gun users cause trouble.
And there are people like me, also gun users that take care of those people when they try to cause trouble with me.
Guns are neither good nor evil. Not any more than your television remote, car or a guitar. They are all tools used by someone. It is that someone that can do evil or good.... to cause trouble or solve it.
Don't take guns away from those who would solve trouble out of a fear of those who cause it.
Those who cause trouble don't care if guns are legal. They use them anyway.
Face it, criminals are obsessed with firearms, even though its wrong to own them.
Read my blog!
It is not wrong to own a firearm.
In fact, it's a right given to Americans by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
That is a pretty close minded view, don'tcha think?
on edit: that comment was for SLS
criminals to tend to want to use firearms to do evil things.
Thankfully for you and everyone else, there are GOOD GUYS who want to have firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones from those bad guys.
If no one in your family will, perhaps you should become one of those good guys.
So people who legally carry guns are now the GOOD GUYS? Are they all heroes or something? People carry guns for a vast amount of reasons and none of those make them GOOD GUYS. And lance just cuz you suffer from the hero complex doesn't mean all other legal gun owners do too.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I like my guns too... does that give me a heroine complex?
It has nothing to do with liking guns. However lance has fallen into this pattern that everyone, including himself, is somehow better for society b/c they carry a gun. I would guess this is b/c he believes that arming the population is the only way to stop crime and so he sees himself as a leader in that area, however I don't know b/c we've never really had a convo about it.
Lance why do you think you suffer from the Hero's Complex?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
However lance has fallen into this pattern that everyone, including himself, is somehow better for society b/c they carry a gun.
Responsible law abiding citizens are safer if they are legally armed, particularly safer from the criminal element. If that makes society better or not is not for me to decide. I'm just worried about getting mugged or shot when I'm out and about.
he sees himself as a leader in that area
Can I quote you for any applications I make to be the leader of anything? I'll put it down under "Previous Experience." lol.
Do you REALLY know that few people who aren't anti-firearm that you think that I'M somehow a leader in this movement? lol. Gah, that's kind of sad.
Lance why do you think you suffer from the Hero's Complex?
lol.... nice framework. That's kind of like asking "Hey, have they arrested you yet for beating your wife?"
I don't have a hero complex, no matter how badly you want me to have one so that you can write me and my views off as irrational and insane.
Actually.... yeah.
People who are responsible enough to take on the responsibility and the Right of the 2nd Amendment, go and get a concealed carry permit and legally carry a firearm on their person, for times of self-defense against the criminals who would prey upon them are indeed the good guys.
The bad guys, of course, being the ones who ILLEGALLY carry for the purpose of committing crimes.
One does not need to have a firearm to be a good guy, but if someone takes the time and money and effort to legally carry a firearm, they're one of the good guys.
Though, I am a bit confused.... if I'm constantly telling people, even here, that I don't carry to protect them, and that (especially in this post where we've been arguing about rapists and women) it is up to the individual to provide for their own security...... how is that a 'hero complex' ? I'm not trying or wanting to be a hero. I want to provide for my own security and would hope that you do the same.
I have no desire or plan on saving your butt from anythin... just those butts that belong to me and my loved ones.
First off let me say that I couldn't read three quaters of the debate above. Maybe it was just on my computer but all the replies got so skinny that the words were cut off and very difficult to read. I'm not blaming you but I have no idea what you said in that paticular banter.
Secondly, b/c someone owns a gun and/or a concealed carry licenses does not make them a good guy. Actions make people good or bad. Carrying a weapon is not an action, it is a presumption that action will need to be taken. If I wear a concealed weapon, and go through the process to do it legally, why do I become a good guy. How do I earn the same respect that say, police or firemen recieve. Now I suppose you could debate what good guy actually means but I assume we could probably agree on who is good and who is bad. And just b/c someone carries a weapon does not make them good.
Finally, I apologize about the hero complex comment. I was pissed off about something else and kind of just wrote blankly. I don't think you suffer from the hero complex and apologize for saying it originally.
But still don't really agree with your original idea.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Actions make people good or bad.
Wholly agree.
Carrying a weapon is not an action, it is a presumption that action will need to be taken.
Wholly disagree. Not only is LEGALLY carring a firearm an action, but it is also not a presumption that action will need to be taken. If i belive that I will need to pull my firearm and defend myself, I don't go there. It is there in case something happens that is NOT in my sphere of control.
If I wear a concealed weapon, and go through the process to do it legally, why do I become a good guy.
Simple... the bad guys who want to carry don't bother with the often LONG and EXPENSIVE process of a legal concealed carry permit. THey just illegally carry. Getting a concealed carry permit shows not only the responsibility to defend yourself, but also the responsibility and respect for law to go through the process legally. Those are both trademarks of a 'good guy' . .. . doing it illegally is a trademark of the 'bad guy' . . .
It is actually pretty simple and obvious. Are you REALLY not able to tell the difference between good and bad?
How do I earn the same respect that say, police or firemen recieve.
Become a policeman or a fireman. What's that have to do with providing for my own safety?
And just b/c someone carries a weapon does not make them good.
Very true, those that carry illegally are always the bad guys.
I don't think you suffer from the hero complex and apologize for saying it originally.
No worries. I'm too lazy to hold a grudge.
But still don't really agree with your original idea.
That's fine, you don't need to. I only ask that the same freedom you have to choose whether or not you want to carry be extended to me as well. In other words, just because YOU would not want to carry, don't vote for any bills or politicians that/who would restrict or eliminate my ability to do so.
There is no black or white answer to this question. But rarely do I think denying somebodie's ability to carry a weapon should be infringed upon. Action needs to be taken and in my mind, stopping you from carrying is not action and may eventually turn out to be a drastic mistake, assuming one day that your weapon is needed for w/e reason. Banning weapons has never been my pergoative, although I usually don't like the idea of having weapons on high/middle/ elementary school's campus, and will not be the pergoative of anyone I vote for.
However this is an issue. One I don't think can be solved by arming the polis. Counteractive steps need to be taken to limit gun violence in this country and we need to come up with a plan to DO something. If dealers are the problem then create a mandatory minimum of "blank" number of years for anyone selling arms illegally. If theft is the problem then increase the number of police officers and work on policies to ensure effectiveness and quickness. If it came down too it I would pay a higher tax so that the gov't could pay for gun shops to increase their security.( Although I don't think is the best idea we can come up with) And if nothing we try works the first time, then let's come up with a different policy.
If I buy a gun, legally, I do not become a good guy. I don't become a bad guy by default either. But it takes a lot more than a weapon in my book to become a good person. Anybody can go through the process, that doesn't make them good in my eyes, maybe you see it differently but my stance won't change on this point. A weapon does not make you good, maybe it shows you're responsible and a trustworthy individual, but it does not make you good. Risking your life for someone makes you admirable, sacraficing your life for someone makes you a hero. Holding a weapon, no matter how it was obtained, just makes you a guy...neither good nor bad.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
although I usually don't like the idea of having weapons on high/middle/ elementary school's campus
Remember that when someone talks about being allowed to carry at a school, they're not talking about the students, as it is illegal already for any student to have a firearm. (Which is why 'gun free zones' at schools are insane... they don't protect against armed children, as it was alread illegal for the children to be armed). They allow for only the teachers or staff that have gone through the concealed carry permit vetting process to carry, and then, only if they CHOOSE to.
Currently, even if you have a concealed carry permit, you cannot have a firearm on school grounds (even in your car, which seperates it from anywhere else in the world, as your car is otherwise known as your private area). This means that a teacher with a concealed carry permit is wholly disarmed from when they leave their house in the morning until they get into their house at night. Most attacks happen in the evening out in public, and a school-related policy has disarmed the person even when they're OFF school grounds.
Counteractive steps need to be taken to limit gun violence in this country and we need to come up with a plan to DO something.
Allow the citizen to be armed to defend themselves. Every other plan fails.
If dealers are the problem then create a mandatory minimum of "blank" number of years for anyone selling arms illegally.
It is already illegal, with a huge punishment, for illegally selling firearms.
If theft is the problem then increase the number of police officers and work on policies to ensure effectiveness and quickness.
The police are not defacto security guards. You are responsible for your own safety and security. Police are there to maintain law and order, not show up in an emergency and save you. The time it takes for a cop to arrive, compared to the time it takes for a criminal to find and kill you, makes it impossible for police (no matter how many there are) to be your personal security force. You, however, are everywhere you go, and are therefore best able to provide your own security and safety if you are able to arm yourself legally.
If it came down too it I would pay a higher tax so that the gov't could pay for gun shops to increase their security
Gun shops already have good security systems. however, there is no security system that matters if you bypass it with driving a truck through it, then grabbing a bunch of firearms and running away. That gets back to the response time of police.
Gun shops aren't the sole supply of firearms. Many are stolen from gang members killed, which were bought from drug dealers, which got them from theives who stole them from houses.
Permit the home owner to carry that pistol on their person and you don't have to worry about it being in the home to be stolen.
And if nothing we try works the first time, then let's come up with a different policy.
We had a policy that worked MUCH better than what we have now, so let's get rid of the anti-gun "Weapons Free Environments" and let's allow the responsible gun owners who wish to carry for their own protection to carry.
If I buy a gun, legally, I do not become a good guy.
It is one of the signs of a good guy, as buying a gun illegally means that you are a bad guy.
But it takes a lot more than a weapon in my book to become a good person.
That's very true, because a firearm is not good nor bad. I can tell you this though... ask a cop that deals with violent crime, and he'll tell you that with almost total certainty that gun crime is done with illegally purchased firearms and self-defense shootings are done with legally purchased and owned firearms. If one doesn't care about committing murder, they don't waste their time and money legally buying a firearm.
A weapon does not make you good, maybe it shows you're responsible and a trustworthy individual, but it does not make you good.
Again, if it is a weapon you own illegally it always makes you bad. Though legal ownership does not GUARENTEE that you are a good guy, illegal weapon ownership does guarentee that you are not.
Holding a weapon, no matter how it was obtained, just makes you a guy...neither good nor bad.
once again, how it was obtained is vital. If illegally, then you are a 'bad guy' . .. all 'good guys' that are armed are armed legally.
I didn't know that teacher/faculty's cars were included in the gun free zone. Seems kind of silly to me, what if they go somewhere after work? What if they get car jacked? But I have known students at my school who carry knives, brass knuckels in their car and have gotten suspended/expelled for it.
I did know that we weren't talking about arming the students but allowing the teachers to be armed. How about this, would you be in favor of eliminating the federal law that creates gun free zones and allowing each school district to decide whether or not they want to allow teachers to carry guns and if they should have any additional requirements before allowing the teachers to carry? And what about college campus? All students(usually) are allowed to carry weapons, legally, should that be allowed. Or once again placed over to the responsibility of the schools?
And I know we've gone over this before but you keep taking my sentences one at a time so let me make this clear as I can. I do not think a weapon, obtained legally, makes you are a good person b/c it means that you went through the motions in my view. Perhaps you, and many others, are good people and also own weapons, legally, but I do not think the two go hand and hand. You could have a guy who beats his wife, also own a gun legally. You could have a guy who cheats on his taxes, who also owns a gun legally. You could a guy who thinks black people should still be his slave, who owns a gun legally. There are to many other aspects that play into whether or not your a good person or not, than to look at just one.( ie owning a gun)
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I didn't know that teacher/faculty's cars were included in the gun free zone.
Not just their cars. Anyone's cars.
If you put that car into Park, there cann't be a weapon in it of any type. And even that is a grey area, as some would want to prosecute you for having a firearm in your car if you're just dropping off your child at school and stop long enough for them to open the door and get out.
Seems kind of silly to me, what if they go somewhere after work? What if they get car jacked?
Ask those who support gun free zones.... heh. Good luck getting a straight answer.
How about this, would you be in favor of eliminating the federal law that creates gun free zones and allowing each school district to decide whether or not they want to allow teachers to carry guns and if they should have any additional requirements before allowing the teachers to carry?
not just teachers, but any legal concealed carry permitholder. And, even then, only if it is not a fireable offense or unlawful to carry despite a "no guns" sticker on the window. VA operates that way and the Virgnia Tech shooting happend on the first year that the college did NOT allow legal concealed carry permitholders to carry. (Remember that, even on a COLLEGE campus, you're still dealing almost exclusively with faculty and staff, apart from a few select seniors or returning students, as 21 is the minimum age for concealed carry permits in almost every state (if not every state.))
You could have a guy who beats his wife, also own a gun legally. You could have a guy who cheats on his taxes, who also owns a gun legally.
those who engage in domestic violence and have been brought to court for it (I.e. the abused spouse calls the cops for it), you can't get a concealed carry permit. And, if they've been convicted of domestic abuse, many states do not allow you to own firearms. Which means that, if you have one and carry it, you are doing so illegally. You are, therefore, a bad guy.
There are to many other aspects that play into whether or not your a good person or not, than to look at just one
That is very true, and I've never said that all people who legally carry are the Good Guys. I HAVE said that all who carry ilegally are the bad guys.
and I have often asked that people not punish the good guys out of a desire to keep guns away from the bad guys, who are already breaking laws by possessing or carrying firearms.
Here's the question, Guns on campus. I'm president, you're you.(hehehe, i got to be president) I put forward a bill idea that does the following. A. abolishes the federal gun free zone on schools. B. allows school districts to decide whether or not they want to allow/disallow all people of legal age to carry a weapon at their schools. C. Leaves all requirements of who can carry/how it has to be reported/what they can carry in sole discretion of the school districts.
Would you support that bill? If not what would you want to see added/taken away from it?
Side note, in my town all schools have been "closed-campus" which means once the first class starts the school is locked the only way in is jump the fence or go through the office. Of course other schools(and virtually all colleges) are "open-campus" meaning anyone can walk on or off at any time. Should the gov't maybe mandate that those who wish to carry at the school must be registered with the school, ie so they know what gun/what that gun's serial number is/how many rounds it holds, etc? Makes tracking eliminating suspects a lot either in the case of a firefight on campus.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Would you support that bill? If not what would you want to see added/taken away from it?
I would want a guarentee added in that the teacher or faculty (or visitor) that wishes to carry a concealed firearm, with a legal permit to do so, CAN indeed do so. Should it be determined that they should not be allowed to carry, it must be determined that the school and the school district must both be held liable for the theft of any firearms left in a car, and for the personal safety of the teacher/faculty/visitor who has a concealed carry permit but was disarmed by school policy.
In other words, hold the school system accountable for the consequences of their policy.
I would support YOUR plan over what is CURRENTLY in place, but if we're going to get that close to it, let's just open it up and let anyone who has a legal concealed carry permit and wishes to carry, to carry their firearm concealed.
Those who do not have firearms are not affected negatively. Students are not affected negatively. The only people who are negatively affected by someone who carries legally are those who would bring a gun to school and try to shoot people.
I have no problem with this:
Should the gov't maybe mandate that those who wish to carry at the school must be registered with the school, ie so they know what gun/what that gun's serial number is/how many rounds it holds, etc?
except the part about the serial number or number of rounds... that information isn't necessary. But I'd have no problem being on a list of faculty armed. I wouldn't want that list to be made public, as it would make me a target... but Yeah, if there is an emergency, they'd know that I'd be armed. That's fine with me.
Ok so you want to be assured that people who are denied to carry by the school system are protected againist theft AND can sue the school system if anything negative happens to/from/at school that could have been stopped by their gun? I would agree MAYBE to the first part, definitley not the second part. What if cars became, like normal, not part of the gun free zone. Therefore if teachers are not allowed to carry weapons, they can leave them in their cars, is that ok with you? That way everything should be squared away. Either your school district allows it or not/allows you or not, either way weapons can be left in their cars. As for schools being responsible for theft, I think that is just going to make a lot of schools vote againist it, schools are already responsible for each child's life, why should we penalize them for break-ins too? My school was never held responsible for break-ins that resulted in theft, usually of radios, ipods, so why would a gun be any different?
Ok so let's say gov't mandates that all people who carry to be registered with the school. But gives discretion of whether or not teachers/faculty can carry. Visitors are a little tricky b/c if a school requires additional measures for teachers and faculty why shoud visitors get on free? I suspect this point would also be left up to the schools as well b/c one school could say that concealed carry laws in our state make you ok at our school while another school says no our state doesn't reach levels we want it too, and not just allowing any visitor on campus. But we can both agree that more power needs to come away from the feds and into the hands of the states/schools correct?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
What if cars became, like normal, not part of the gun free zone. Therefore if teachers are not allowed to carry weapons, they can leave them in their cars, is that ok with you?
A gun in a car doesn't protect the teacher during their most vulnerable times, which is during school hours, especially nowdays when teachers are assaulted, even stabbed, for failing students.
As for schools being responsible for theft, I think that is just going to make a lot of schools vote againist it, schools are already responsible for each child's life, why should we penalize them for break-ins too?
The only reason why it is in the car is because the school denies the ability for the permitholder to carry it. Therefore, it is by their design that the firearm has to remain in the car. As it is their policy that puts that firearm in the car, it is that policy that ought to be held responsible (along with the criminal of course) for the theft. If the teacher/faculty could carry it on them, it wouldn't have been in the car to have been stolen.
so why would a gun be any different?
because school policy didn't keep ipods or cd's in your car. You choose to keep them in your car. When the school denies the ability of someone with a legal concealed carry permit to carry in their building, their policy forces the legal permitholder to leave their firearm in the car, open to thefts that couldn't occur if it was on their person.
Ok so let's say gov't mandates that all people who carry to be registered with the school. But gives discretion of whether or not teachers/faculty can carry
I only support the school knowing who has a concealed carry permit if they are allowed to carry. If they are not, then I wholly oppose such a list. You can't register them, then not let them carry.
Visitors are a little tricky b/c if a school requires additional measures for teachers and faculty why shoud visitors get on free?
businesses can put "No weapons permitted" stickers on their doors, and people with a legal concealed carry permit can't carry (or, in many states, they can, but they can get kicked out for that reason). Schools can do the same, but I would suggest that those who would do bad things with a firearm in your school would do so whether the policy lets them carry or not.
Those who would commit murder don't much care about school policy regarding carrying firearms in a building.
But we can both agree that more power needs to come away from the feds and into the hands of the states/schools correct?
Yes, less intrusive power on behalf of the federal government, and more power (and the responsibility theren) back on the individual... as granted by the Bill of Rights.
You crack me up.
I've got Italian and Irish blood in me (among various other nationalities). Anyone who knows me will tell you I hold grudges forever and I have the worst temper. I wish I could be too lazy to be angry.
No irish in me, but a great deal of italian and german.
I was cursed by blood to love food.
and it shows.
I'm also american indian.
germain, italian and indian.
Get off my land, but leave the food. *grin*
Oh yea?
I throw potatoes at myself when I'm bored.
yeah, but you're too drunk to hit yourself.
heh... we're so evil and politically incorrect... delving into cultural stereotypes....
I love that we can laugh at them, unlike the majority of Americans who take themselves wayyyyyyyy too seriously.
sense of humor is one of the key differences.
To the left, the hate-filled humor of Al Franken and Jeanine Garaflo (sp?) is funny.
blech.
Well, Michael Savage is humorous to me if only because he's so ridiculous. He's a total basket case. I was listening to his show last night when I went to pick up my laptop, and he was hysterical over CAIR. I almost snorted I was laughing so hard at his ridiculousness.