In the wake of the massacre at an elementary school in Newton, Conn., that left 20 children, six adults, and the shooter dead Friday, the gun-control debate has been reignited.
But if the suspect, Adam Lanza, got his mother’s legally purchased and registered guns after murdering her, questions burn about how enacting more laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would have helped.
The Libertarian Party said today the focus should be on ending the prohibition of self-defense in schools.
“We’ve created a ‘gun-free zone,’ a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth,” said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. “We’ve given them an open killing field, and we’ve made the children of this country the victims.”
Wrights argued that the presence of guns on campus would be a strong deterrent: “They’re not going to walk into a police station, and why not? Because that’s where the guns are,” he said.
The Federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act prohibits carrying firearms on school grounds in most cases. Without that law, the party argued, adults on campus could have been armed and ready to defend themselves and the children in the case of an attacker.
“We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited,” said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. “Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do.”
The party noted that at this month’s mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston was halted by two co-workers who carried concealed handguns. And on and on.
Libertarians also note the post-9/11 prohibition on pilots carrying guns in the cockpit, a ban recently lifted when Congress acknowledged that the pilots would be better able to stop hijackers if armed.
“You can’t depend on somebody else to take care of your own life for you,” Wrights said. “It’s too precious to put it into the hands of somebody else, particularly when the seconds count.”
The Libertarian Party platform on self-defense states: “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.”
The party received the most votes in its history in this year’s presidential contest: 1,272,105 cast for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. That was more than double the 2008 total and more than triple the party’s 2004 count.
“It’s impossible to imagine the depths of despair and grief that the victims’ families are experiencing right now,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Our hearts go out to every one of them.”
I can agree with this but only to a point.
Students should not be allowed to do so.
Agreed, but isn’t there already a ban on minors’ purchasing weapons? Just as the state can restrict your right as a minor to buy alcohol or drive a car or vote, restricting the sale of firearms only to adults shouldn’t pose a problem.
I feel constrained to make a point that is all too evident in cases like this. We do a grievous harm to ourselves and our loved ones by designating third parties – government agencies, e.g. – as ‘first responders.’ This phraseology is a blatant diversion.
‘First responders’ are those who are on the scene when the action goes down – you, your family, your neighbors. They should be prepared to deal with a situation at once, not wait for second and third responders who may be minutes, many minutes, away. Fire fighters, the police, emergency rescue units are not first responders in any true meaning of the term, but arrive after the fact in most cases.
In Newtown, for example, the principal and her assistants and the teachers were the first responders – some of them died trying to protect their charges, and they were unarmed.
Many hurricane Sandy victims are still waiting for government ‘first responders’ to give them some assistance – many expected quick government response and did not prepare adequately or to the best of their ability, and they were left in the lurch.
Using the right terminology may help others in the future to prepare for disasters – or not, but at least it serves a better purpose in that we may do for ourselves instead of waiting for someone or some thing that will arrive late – or never arrive.
It is completely unacceptable that any place should be considered ‘gun free’, especially where children are concerned. Because as is always the case, those who are up to no good will get their hands on guns, and no amount of controls will stop them. Therefore, schools should have at least one armed guard, as well as a designated teacher or administrator who is similarly armed. It should become completely a venue where people NEVER want to take aim, simply because they know they will be thwarted, one way or another.
Leftists want to control the populace, hence they are aiming for the Second Amendment. And those who think they are unsafe now, heaven help if they grab your guns too – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/19/shoring-up-barack-hussein-obamas-second-term-plans-addendum-tobarack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-green-wise-via-the-economy-disarming-the-citizens-via-gun-control-commentary-by-ad/
Fight them, as if your lives depend on it. Never let them come for your guns.
I usually agree with Adina, but, for America, not feasable to keep actual “designated guardian”. Would create too many legal problems with certification, and, of course, problems with lawsuits for failure to fulfill duty to protect. My thought is that we have to think like criminals and act accordingly. The problem as I see it is that even nutcases like Lanza can understand what a Gun Free Zone is. As safe place where no one will shoot back. If we would just step the regulations back, and let whoever wants to carry a legally carried firearm in and around schools, then the typical criminal is inhibited by the uncertainty. The firearm carriers will be carrying to protect themselves! If they just happen to protect others while they are at it, well, then, more to the good! There is a saying that to the guilty man, there is a constable behind every lamppost; we should make it very uncertain for criminals.
Not sure if you were being light-hearted or not.
At the risk of being pedantic and telling you something you already know (and I don’t want to sound officious), Federal law restricts the purchase of rifles and shotguns from licensed dealers to 18 years and older and purchase of handguns from dealers to those 21 and up. Federal law allows for 18 year olds, as adults, to possess handguns and thus does not bar their purchase from private parties or receipt as gifts.
State laws vary but most allow private purchases at 18 but restrict concealed carry to those 21 and up, though one state allows it at 20 and I believe one state at 18.
The GFSZA allows states to determine if licensed carriers may carry on K-12 campuses, it is silent on colleges. In any event, in practice the only students who will be able to carry on campuses if the various school prohibitions are removed by the states are adults who can already legally carry off campus.
The anti’s like to act as if there would be a sea change, rather than simply having the same people who already safely and legally carry off campus among those same children, to also carry on campus if they choose. Since the only adults who are generally allowed on K-12 campuses schools are staff who are there, entrusted with our kids anyway, and parents who have a reason to be there, it’s not like there’d be any visible change, in practice.
Depends on what students you are talking about, these incidences happen more often then not in collages. Collage students should be allowed to carry concealed – they are adults.
It depends what students you are talking about. Most of these incidences happen in collages. Collage age kids, after getting concealed gun permits, should be allowed to carry. They are adults.
Actually, there IS a strong argument for teaching kids to use guns.
Back in the day, American kids used to take weapons to school regularly, to use them for hunting after school.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.”
I wouldn’t go as far as this. The platform is forgetting that the 2nd amendment recognizes the need for a well-regulated militia. Reasonable regulations short of an outright ban (or those that are so onerous as to be an effective ban) are within the rights of states and localities, and of the Fed for interstate issues. Of course, the argument lies in what constitutes “reasonable.”
I do agree, though, that “gun free zones” are a disaster, is essence advertising “easy targets here!” The federal act should be repealed before more schools become shooting galleries.
Back in the day Well-Regulated meant that it was well run. It did not imply government oversight.
It is amazing how many people do not know that. Here is a post I made on another forum which is appropriate here. :
Well, not just what it means to me but what it really means … historically and in the Framers context.
Which is that the “regulation” part is in reference to the Militia only, not the People or what arms they may own… that is taken care of by the “Shall not be Infringed” part. I digress.. “Regulated” that means well organized and trained militia when called up….”Regulated”.
As reference .. I give you …. Hamilton….http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/F…t/feder29.html
“FEDERALIST No. 29
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”
”
Note this has nothing to do with the Part of the Second pertaining to the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
In fact, a strong case can be made that the militia clause was put into the Second Amendment specifically to allow the government to require all able bodied citizens to possess and maintain a firearm, powder, ball, and other equipment judged sufficient for action should a militia call up be required.
And as you state, the militia clause has no bearing on the underlying right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
We should go back to that. Every able-bodied adult citizen who has not been convicted of a violent crime within the past decade should be required to keep a battle rifle and a copious supply of ammo and be able to demonstrate proficiency with it. Firearms training should be part of a normal education for youths.
Look at the mass murder stats: It is not individual criminals or crazy people that we really need to worry about – it’s governments, including our own.
well regulated actually meant well trained
It’s my impression that the law does not generally forbid school employees from serving as trained and authorized armed security guards and I think that would be a good step for many schools.
On the other hand, the above proposal is silly: ad hoc carrying of guns by any adult into the school? How about the crazy janitor in the basement or the parent who has just lost his job and is in a divorce/custody battle?
The Libertarian party always provides a good example of taking a good idea and carrying it to its absurd extreme.
“The Libertarian party always provides a good example of taking a good idea and carrying it to its absurd extreme.”
Agreed, though the idea of trained security guards is a good one. Districts could also look into private armed security companies. Might be money better spent, rather than on bloated pensions and district executive salaries.
Security guards would only be of benefit if none on the teachers or other staff carried. Why not see if obeying the constitution takes care of the whole issue?
To extreme for you?
“Security guards” can also be vetted school employees who have received, for example, basic and combat pistol courses and training on lawful use of the weapon.
And how will any law prohibit the crazy parent in a custody battle from coming to the campus with a gun?
Oh come now. There was a no guns allowed sign at Sandy Hook Elementary and a federal law making any guns there a crime. Surely you are not suggesting this did not work.
Yep, any adult should be able to carry if they are allowed arms at all. Including at schools.
And how will any law prohibit the crazy parent in a custody battle from coming to the campus with a gun?
Laws cannot prevent any such thing; THAT’S THE POINT.
What we CAN do is to make sure that, on the rare (but not rare enough!) occasions when someone sets foot in a school intent on committing murder, there will be responsible armed adults to stop them.
How to do that? I favor the Starbucks Rule. Just as Starbucks allows employees (and patrons) to carry if the local laws allow it, so schools should permit teachers to carry concealed, if they have done all that their state requires for getting a concealed-carry license. If a school wants to add additional requirements, such as a class to cover special situations pertaining to schools, that’s fine. (I would want such a class to be open to parents as well — and to licensed students on college campuses, for that matter.)
All anyone ever talks about is “what happens when a crazy person gets a gun”. We know exactly how that ends — we’ve seen it too many times. But hardly anybody asks the other question — what happens when a responsible adult CANNOT get to a gun, and needs one desperately? Not that long ago, a law-abiding woman left her gun in the car, as the establishment she was visiting required. She was therefore helpless when a gunman came in… and she had to watch her own parents die at their hands, knowing that she could have taken down the attacker and saved her parents IF SHE HAD ONLY DISOBEYED A STUPID LAW.
Our teachers are charged with the safety of our children. Why would we want to force them to be helpless?
Well…the fact that this wasn’t a “crazy,” janitor, parent or teacher…and they still got several guns into the school anyway…and killed over 20 children…seems to defeat the premise of your argument against allowing qualified janitors, parents and teachers from carrying a legal, concealed firearm for personal protection…and for the protection of defenseless children into the school while they conduct their regular school business as law abiding citizens…don’t you think…
Here Here, I rise to support this Gentleman.
No, they show that so called conservatives are just as much for a big government nanny to protect them as liberals.
How are today’s laws preventing the crazed janitor from bringing his gun to school now? Laws ONLY APPLY TO THE LAW ABIDING.
Your argument regarding the “crazy janitor” or the “aggrieved parent” fails critical scrutiny:
> The possession of a firearm does not inevitably transform even severely stressed persons into malignant killers of strangers. Out of more than 200 million adults in the USA, only 2-3 per year may behave this way — less than your annual chances of winning the Powerball lottery.
> In the proposed environment, for every deranged individual, there will be several armed and conscientious citizens and teachers, ready to stop him.
> The presence of armed citizens has been shown to deter these mass public shootings. Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) has shown that jurisdictions that adopted liberal CCW laws have seen mass public shootings fall dramatically, almost to zero rate.
> Mass shooters are fundamentally cowardly, seeking venues in which they will be unopposed, which is why schools and post offices are their favorite sites, and either meekly surrendering, or committing suicide when confronted by equal force.
Many conservatives often forget that the ‘well-trained militia’ part didn’t mean a state controlled National Guard or a federally controlled – and huge – active-duty military.
Militias were to remain locally controlled and trained…by your town, city, and county governments, at most.
Which also meant that most military aged males were going to be a part of said militia and provide much of their own equipment, including military grade weapons.
Most of the Founders also agree that it is an individual right to keep and bear firearms. This right shall not be infringed. Period. Dot. End of discussion. No exceptions. No caveats. No special cases.
Any argument against those positions – except as matters of details wrt to which Founder said what, and w/o cherry picking – is the same as saying, ‘For the good of____, we can’t allow individual Americans to do those things. The government knows best, after all! We must allow the government to keep us all safe!’
Freedom and liberty, or slavery to government. The only remaining option is death before slavery.
There is no other ‘middle ground’ or compromise.
Liberty or death, as Mr. Henry once said.
The intentions of the Founding Fathers won’t matter one whit if Feckless Won gets to name a replacement or two on the Supreme Court. Odds are good he’ll get to name at least one or two. Some how – some way – some liberal appeals court will toss the ball up to SCOTUS a case or three challenging the right to bear arms. It will happen. We are one conservative judge away from total takeover IMO.
An excellent idea.
When putting up a “gun free zone” sign, we may as well set up a shooting gallery and hang our children up on hooks for the whackos.
“Abortion is the law of the land”.
OK – I get that. I don’t like it – but I deal with it. It is reality.
The second amendment is a guaranteed right of the Constitution. Deal with it. In some fashion other than trying to abrogate the lawful rights of the American citizen – DEAL WITH IT! It too is REALITY!
We are also guaranteed the integrity of our property by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Four words: “Kelo versus New London.” If the august Justices of the Supreme Court regard the Constitution as a quaint little anachronism, it means literally NOTHING and cannot protect us any more than the Code of Hammurabi can. G-d help us.
Unfortunately, due to the slavish, sensational and selective reporting by the media, we can expect additional copycat attacks by deranged individuals. Do not expect any attempt at adult conversation on the subject by our “leaders”. Quite to the contrary, I am sure they view Newtown and similar tragedies as opportunities to be used to stampede the analytically challenged among us into an unwise movement…ala Fast and Furious. By the way, how’s that investigation coming…anyone? How many potentially Presidential career ending issues (when the country formerly known as the USA existed) do we have on the back burners now?
This is like asking how safe are you with the government and the bureaucrats knowing everything you are doing keeping you safe? The simple answer It does not. It actually threatens you more! They are the profilers!
Wake up America! We MUST repeal the PATRIOT Act! NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EiY7AarMoI&feature=related
I have often wondered if those who want gun free zones at schools and other facilities where great numbers of people can be found would be willing to place a sign on their lawn stating their property is a gun free zone. I some how doubt it since I have never seen that happen.
I have a permit to carry and I can honestly say that I have never thought about drawing my firearm when verbally attacked by people who oppose my conservative/TEA Party views. I have received 3 anonymous written treats, but they are not actionable by law enforcement as in most if not all states and I certainly do not get law enforcement protection. So who is to protect me and my family? Or as some would like to say, restrain my speech and peaceful actions and I wouldn’t have the problem. Paraphrasing Franklin, give up your freedom for security and you will have neither..
OK, maybe.
But the lowest common denominator in most of these cases is the mental illness of the attacker. The “progressives” fight tooth and nail to protect the so called rights of the mentally disturbed. Our cities are clogged with the homeless, most of whom demonstrate sign of serious mental or emotional problems, yet are “protected” from the appropriate treatment or supervision that just might improve their quality of life as well as ours.
Time and time again, strong signals have been sent by the would-be attackers well in advance of their horrible actions and authorities have been notified to no avail.
Gun control- maybe not. Arm everybody- not yet. Let’s wise up and work on the fundamentals for a change and stop pandering the deranged under the pretense of good intentions.
What a fricking joke. Three days ago, teachers were incompetent union thugs with an insidious plan to convert your kids to communism. Now you want them armed.
Nah, only the competant ones that can pass the background check and the state licensing procedures.
The scum you refer too will still wring their hands and teach the kids crap.
Wake up people! Why didn’t these children have guns to shoot back at the terrorist who murdered these unarmed dupes? Six year olds can handle guns as well as anyone else. My kids have (responsible) access to guns and they know how to use them. Although they are only 11 and 15 I trust they they will know what to do when the black helicopters arrive or the black man comes banging on the door. Shoot and reload, shoot and reload. Only then can we be safe. God bless America!
Or maybe, the faculty? I wouldn’t trust teachers with it, necessarily, but what about the principals? They confronted this guy, had they been armed, they could have stopped him instead of getting shot themselves.
Or even the janitor. I’d trust the average blue collar person to be responsible with a gun.
*facepalm*
And now this.
Folks, no-one is suggesting that underage kids be allowed to carry weapons. They are saying either you provide armed security at the school, or you let the teachers and other ADULT employee’s (janitors, etc) who QUALIFY to carry concealed, carry concealed if they choose too.
Also, take down those stupid ‘gun-free’ zone signs; they might as well be bulls-eyes to the cowardly filth that plan and commit these crimes.
Moby alert! Go back to your mommy’s basement, liberal troll!
Here’s the story that the MSM will not print.
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure
Our politicians created “gun free” zones which predictably have become killing fields. And then they proceeded to cut federal funds that provided for security equipment and police officers in schools. With all the waste and duplication in DC they apparently couldn’t find anything less important to cut.
Now they want to blame it on guns and gun owners, and eviscerate our gun rights, so they can create even more victims amongst the law abiding.
Bridget, please tell me you don’t actually agree with this rubbish? I don’t think you do – I think you’re just reporting it. But others here might confuse reporting with agreement. I’ve heard you on NPR – you sound a great deal smarter than to believe nonsene like this.
Techno & Spindok, how many school shootings were there back when high schools at least had rifle teams, and carrying a weapon was a matter of personal choice and not unconstitutional licensing?
What do you think has changed?
Do “Gun Free Zone” signs do anything other than invite mass mayhem?
Can you in fact think clearly?
The issue is not really in doubt.
Yep. Not in doubt at all.
On another note… “NPR”… the pocket protector of progressives everywhere. Not that anyone was in any doubt about Ol’ Tecno. lol
“Techno & Spindok, how many school shootings were there back when high schools at least had rifle teams, and carrying a weapon was a matter of personal choice and not unconstitutional licensing?”
Lots. Wiki has a list of school shootings going back to the 19th century – go take a look.
No there weren’t. None at all.
A “school shooting” is when one or two students show up with guns and massacre as many people as they can, until killed or captured.
I know this because when a gang banger throws a piece over the fence for another one to make a hit inside a very secure school inside a liberal run city, the liberal media don’t call it a school shooting, in fact they don’t even get excited. Maybe because they think it’s only black-on-black violence, maybe because they don’t want to showcase the abject failure of the blue social model, maybe because now with fully electronic voting, they can make as many black votes as they need–c’mon Philly, all those districts where no one even voted for Romney by accident?
The first “school shooting” was in 1978. That’s how the history is written. Go tilt at windmills somewhere else.
In fact, the only people who want to do anything constructive about gang related violence are the libertarians who want to end the war on drugs, which would send the gangs looking for a new revenue source–and those would be the libertarians inside the republican party–I don’t see the libertarians in the LP as doing anything constructive.
But if the GOP keeps pandering to the most extreme socalled conservatives–I mean socons–and they keep generating Mitt Romneys, Bushes, and McCains for president…
…then the LP is probably as reasonable a place to be as anywhere else.
If the very best shot we’ve got is rebuilding from the ashes, I have no doubt this GOP establishment will happily let this batch of Dems pour the kerosene.
Where are the creative “tax increase” proposals from the GOP, such as what Glenn Reynolds and other have suggested?
Let. It. Burn.
“the only people who want to do anything constructive about gang related violence are the libertarians who want to end the war on drugs, which would send the gangs looking for a new revenue source–and those would be the libertarians inside the republican party–I don’t see the libertarians in the LP as doing anything constructive.”
You obviously don’t know much about gangs if you think the only thing gangs do is sell drugs.
Oh and there was another thing that was not as prevalent around the beginning of the twentieth century even while most drugs were illegal: there were hardly black or Mexican gangs. I wonder why that was?
“You obviously don’t know much about gangs if you think the only thing gangs do is sell drugs.”
You obviously don’t have much practice reading if you think I ever wrote they only earn money from drugs. You’re also nuts if you don’t think it’s worthwhile depriving them of those funds by doing the right thing.
“Oh and there was another thing that was not as prevalent around the beginning of the twentieth century even while most drugs were illegal: there were hardly black or Mexican gangs. I wonder why that was?”
Because no drugs were federally illegal until 1915, the black family hadn’t been destroyed by welfare yet, and the Mexicans weren’t an assimilation problem until the late 30′s, and not a big one until the last few decades.
Here is your PB&J, crust cut off, red juice, carrots, rice crispies, and fresh load for your .38. Don’t forget your math homework. Bus is here, have a great day!
Have no problem with security at schools or teachers trained in gun safety and gun use.
During my last 18 months of high school, we had armed guards patrolling the hallways during school hours. A black student stabbed a white student and the school district was worried about retaliation, which thankfully never happened. (the original beef was not related to skin color, these two guys just did not like each other) This was more than 30 years ago but I’d still rather see visible, armed guards than be surrounded by some kooks who think posting more gun free zone signs will keep everyone safe.
Belsen Russia 350+ dead.The school was a soft target with no protection that is why it was attacked. Having adults armed in schools only makes sense. If nothing else that is where I would want some one armed to protect my child. It may not stop every sick person but it surely would end it much quicker with fewer causalties.
Having an armed guard is nice but he will be the first one targeted by some one bent on a rampage. That is the beaauty of carry and conceal, you never know who might be the protecting guardian. It happened in Minnesota the first one shot was the security guard at the front door. Strange how the MSM doesn’t report how many events have been stopped by armed civilians. Wonder why? (Sarcasm)
Abolish education by the state. Let towns and counties take care of preparing small groups of children for a national examination that can be taken at any time of the year. Stop gathering thousands of kids in one place. Even with no guns that is inviting all kinds of trouble.
That will fit our newfound status as a third-world country. yeah….. that will work just fine……’>……
Did you forget the killings at the tiny Amish school?
But the gun control debate isn’t about preventing murders. If the statist aristocrats who run the country with an iron fist but who want more and more power to control every detail of what every person does, cared about preventing murders, they would be increasing jail sentences for violent criminals, shutting down the southern border, shutting down gangs in the inner cities, shutting down drug traffic, and making inner cities a safe place to live and work though any number of means. Those things would reduce murders by ten thousand or more a year, far more than stopping all the mass murderers in the world would do.
It has as much to do with safety as their demand for higher tax rates has to do with revenue.
If they truly wanted more revenues to the government, they would lower, not raise, tax rates. It’s been shown numerous times that you can lower tax rates and collect more revenue, just as the converse has been shown numerous times. It’s not about revenue, it’s about social engineering via tax policy.
Likewise gun control. It is not about public safety, it is about stripping the citizenry of their ability to take up arms against the state.
This will never happen. The only things liberals will trust citizens on is sex and what drugs to put into their bodies. Everything else will be dictated.
Of course, when considering the probems out-of-wedlock births impose upon society, far greater than any shootings, perhaps we should do something about that to. Say, ban sex outside of marriage. But that violates the rule that says only that which liberals wish will be allowed to happen.
My personal opinion is that folks need to buy the semi-automatics before they are banned. Then they need to start learning how to use them, for if there is ever a need.
I will say that what us of this current geeration have is a test–can we be stampeded each time something happens, or can we think.
So today’s blunt and unpleasant fact, unpopular probably, to be denounced, but true–it’s 28 deaths in this one, and these things account for how many deaths per year? Not that many. Not something happening every week. And my guess is with some changes, we will be seeing less of them too. It’s the combination of modern anti-biotics and modern diets causing this, or at least that is my hunch.
No, I think I am going to have to declne President Obama’s offer that we all come together to do something he wanted to do from day one, bur could never be bothered to bring before the voters. I am not surrendering one more freedom to the Democratic Party willingly. If mine is taken, it will be because it in fact was *taken*—by the threat of violence from the state in the form of police action. Not because I agreed it was the right thing to do.
I submit done often enough–and Democrats are just the sort to do so–that it could tend to be irritating enough to folk’s feelings that they get fed up and do something about it.
I have a counter-proposal for the President–if I can find 28 American combat deaths in Iraq that occurred 2006-7, after a point where the enemy’s support would normally have melted away (as in fact happened after the surge), but where that strength was maintained due to the foe’s hopes that anti-war sentiment here at home would hand him a victory he could not otherwise obtain–if I can find 28 deaths, just 28 deaths, can we then start banning anti-war protests?
I bet you I can find them if I looked at the Vietnam War.
And as rar as the banning of speech because it causes troop deaths–hey, you know, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, you know. Reasonable restrictions and all, and Congress is supposed to vote on war decisions, so it’s not like the people are shut out. I think it is time we tackle something which has caused far more American deaths than any lone gunmen, by giving hope to the enemy that if he just holds on long enough, he will win.
Oh, as a codicil–normally Congress gets a say on whether we do or don’t do extended military action. Not under this President, though.
The first sensible thing I have seen about this incident.
With mothers like the late Ms. Lanza presumably still out there, it would be a good idea. If what we’ve been reading is correct, Momma Lanza was most directly to blame for the horror that befell those innocent children and their families. Be she is dead now, along with her twisted offspring, so there is nothing more to be done except to disallow the current Alinskyite administration from stealing any more of our individual rights. WE are not to blame for the criminally negligent parenting of this dead single mother.
Every school in Israel has an armed guard. Gates are closed and locked once the kids are in. Only the armed guard can unlock the doors.
As for the scenario where the armed guard is shot first, the solution is two armed guards at different locations in same school. That way if the first one gets shot the second one is alerted informs the police and rushes to the location of shooter.
This isn’t a big expense compared to the consequences.
Friday morning, prior to the news being released about Newtown, I applied at my county sheriff’s office for a permit to buy a handgun. The waiting period is up on Monday. It will be interesting to see whether it is approved.
If it is, I’ll be trotting my hiney up to the Bass Pro Shop.
Interestingly, no permit is required for a 30-06. Just a quick computer background check.
The LP is making more and more sense, and the GOP, less and less. It’s past time to switch. The real RINOs are the ones for less govt and less spending because the nature of the party has shifted away from them.
I agree. There is still one chance for the GOP to redeem itself in my eyes – swing hard libertarian, but I am not seeing that happening. Ah, well, won’t be the first party going the way of the dodo.
With references here: http://genejockey.blogspot.com/2012/12/talkin-points.html
In short, four school mass murders from the beginning of the 20th century through 1990; after gun Free School Zones act was introduced – 13 of them right there.
And – feel free to borrow and use.
Suggesting the arming of teachers, especially in an elementary school in a state like Connecticut, is as stupid an idea as banning private gun ownership. And making such suggestions in the current post-Newtown hysterical climate is an especially stupid and clueless thing to do.
Ride out the hysteria folks, then make suggestions that may have a chance at consensus.
You got a better idea, Bozo?
Bozo: if you’re going to say that an argument is stupid, explain WHY you think it’s stupid.
Otherwise, your words are not an argument; they are noise.
This might not be the time to advance such an argument, true. But suppose another tragedy happens next month… and it’s not prevented because we decided not to have this discussion yet? How long, exactly, should we wait?
As for the supposed stupidity of arming teachers — it’s one of the few things our modern society HASN’T tried. (Societies that have tried it have been largely successful, e.g. elementary schools in Israel.) We have seen that increasing numbers of concealed carriers, and public awareness of it, have tended to reduce violent crime, not increase it. So the idea certainly doesn’t seem stupid to me.
Finally: it seems that a school in Texas is trying it, allowing licensed teachers to carry in the school. So now we have a chance to find out how stupid it is, don’t we?
This is what the israeli’s do and it works. Any teachers that wish it should be armed. Also all children should be trained to operate firearms as well. They should really have either a firing range at school or one accessible to school to properly train responsible firearm handling since it is a consitutional right AND responsibility to know how to use a firearm.
A gun free zone is a free fire zone
Yep. The original 1990 school gun-free zone law is why I stopped voting democrat. I understood the intent-to give criminals opportunities to exploit which the dems whould exploit in turn.
Use the leftist tactit:
Politicians who support “gun-free-zones” are complicit in the murder of any and all people murdered as a result of these archaic laws.
18 year old children can carry and use weapons in the military but cannot be trusted to self defence at a college?
The initial laws were probably enacted to keep kids (gang members) from bringing weapons to school. Has that stopped them? The laws need to be revised and be more specific. The other side of the law should be revised to allow training of school personnel in the use of firearms for protection of themselves and the students.
Gun Free Zones? only law-abiding citizens abide by the law. That obviously has not worked, so reasonable people should try something better; let law-abiding adults carry guns so they are on an equal footing with the law-breakers.
I agree with arming teachers and staff – but not children. Make sure they are more trained than those of us without the responsibility for children’s safety in school. Also, there needs to be more discipline in schools – the last thing we need is a kid taking a gun from a teacher and shooting someone with it…