THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

How can we keep guns and still guarantee responsible ownership and use? I dont think we can so.

1we must limit access to guns

2we must invent guns that cease working when they sense
that the user is off their rocker

3 we allow a certain amount of wanton slaughter to go on with the proviso that gun manufacturers are liable for extreme damage claims (like 100s of millions per claims made, and the erps are killed along with their entire gene pool..

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

I just read, in my local paper, that there is an idiot up here in Canada, (British Columbia to be exact) who is saying we should get rid of our gun laws and arm teachers. He wants more guns, not less.

That's not idiocy; he just wants to restore freedom and civil rights to Canada -- certainly a noble goal.

You obviously only know the history and geography of your own little world.

Wrong again.

Intrepid wrote:

Canada is a free country with all of the rights that we need. Try not to be too envious.

You guys always babble about "need" when it comes to freedom. It never fails.

No, you are not a free country, not since you've passed laws that overrule the right to keep a military rifle at home.

And I am hardly envious of your serfdom.

Nothing overrules our right to keep a military rifle at home. In fact, I have one.
The fact that it is registered
does not take away any freedom.
Also, the fact that I own one does not, in any way,
mean that I have it for the purpose of harming another human being.

You don't know what freedom is. You are so wrapped up in your "need" to have a weapon to do harm that it is consuming you. Your bravado talk is childish and I would not doubt that you would shoot your little gun without hesitation. It is your ilk that is the cause of grief in this world.

It is no coincidence that the majority of death by guns is in the U.S. It is no coincidence that the majority of deaths are caused by testosterone toting males. It is no coincidence that your second amendment is silly and outdated.

I wonder how many pro-gun-freedom advocates have this opinion.

If abolishing gun ownership would stop all murder, I'd be the first on the bandwagon--but we know it won't.

Additionally--and more seriously--freedom is a big deal to me. If we start taking **** away from people to control their behavior--what if gun violence isn't what the "controlling establishment" was focused on--

What if it was extramarital sex, or subversive thinking...? You don't mind wrestling guns away from people, but when they come for your books and your porno, you may feel a bit differently.

I really don't think taking stuff away from people is the way to go. The deviant behavior isn't caused by the item--video games, porno, violent films, guns--but by people. Personal responsibility isn't a catch phrase. Are there any anti-gunnites who at least get this, though they don't agree with it?

It is unfair and incorrect to stereotype pro-gun ownership people as blood thirsty or uncaring about national violence. Could the anti-gun lobby understand that some of us sincerely believe that the government mandated removal of personally owned firearms is more dangerous than the status quo.

3 we allow a certain amount of wanton slaughter to go on with the proviso that gun manufacturers are liable for extreme damage claims (like 100s of millions per claims made, and the erps are killed along with their entire gene pool..

What's your first clue that he won't stop posting in large letters???
At least 5 people have asked or told him to stop and he's still doing it.

It's boring to keep asking for it. Give it up.

I think we are legislated to death. Why can't someone smoke pot?

Lash wrote:

.

I think we are legislated to death.
Why can't someone smoke pot? ?!

Mame wrote:

Lash wrote:

.

I think we are legislated to death.
Why can't someone smoke pot? ?!

The most PIVOTAL criterion
of whether we live in a FREE country,
or under a paternalistic benevolent dictatorship
is WHETHER THE CITIZENS CAN FREELY
ENGAGE IN SELF DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITY
without the interference of government.

Government was brought into being
in an effort to defend the rights of the citizens
from violation by others ( alien or domestic )
NOT to defend the citizens from their own poor judgment.

Many people ( liberal collectivist-authoritians )
oppose FREEDOM, preferring government interference.
That is the difference between conservative-libertarianism
and liberal-authoritarianism.

David

I wonder how many pro-gun-freedom advocates have this opinion.

If abolishing gun ownership would stop all murder,
I'd be the first on the bandwagon--but we know it won't.

Additionally--and more seriously--freedom is a big deal to me.

If we start taking **** away from people to control their behavior--what if gun violence isn't what the "controlling establishment" was focused on--

What if it was extramarital sex, or subversive thinking...? You don't mind wrestling guns away from people, but when they come for your books and your porno, you may feel a bit differently.

I really don't think taking stuff away from people is the way to go. The deviant behavior isn't caused by the item--video games, porno, violent films, guns--but by people. Personal responsibility isn't a catch phrase. Are there any anti-gunnites who at least get this, though they don't agree with it?

It is unfair and incorrect to stereotype pro-gun ownership people as blood thirsty or uncaring about national violence. Could the anti-gun lobby understand that some of us sincerely believe that the government mandated removal of personally owned firearms is more dangerous than the status quo.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Mame wrote:

Lash wrote:

.

I think we are legislated to death.
Why can't someone smoke pot? ?!

The most PIVOTAL criterion
of whether we live in a FREE country,
or under a paternalistic benevolent dictatorship
is WHETHER THE CITIZENS CAN FREELY
ENGAGE IN SELF DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITY
without the interference of government.

Government was brought into being
in an effort to defend the rights of the citizens
from violation by others ( alien or domestic )
NOT to defend the citizens from their own poor judgment.

Many people ( liberal collectivist-authoritians )
oppose FREEDOM, preferring government interference.
That is the difference between conservative-libertarianism
and liberal-authoritarianism.

David

I am trying hard to think of a more foolish collection of words.

Um, who are the domestic if not the citizens?

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Mame wrote:

Lash wrote:

.

I think we are legislated to death.
Why can't someone smoke pot? ?!

The most PIVOTAL criterion
of whether we live in a FREE country,
or under a paternalistic benevolent dictatorship
is WHETHER THE CITIZENS CAN FREELY
ENGAGE IN SELF DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITY
without the interference of government.

Government was brought into being
in an effort to defend the rights of the citizens
from violation by others ( alien or domestic )
NOT to defend the citizens from their own poor judgment.

Many people ( liberal collectivist-authoritians )
oppose FREEDOM, preferring government interference.
That is the difference between conservative-libertarianism
and liberal-authoritarianism.

David

I am trying hard to think of a more foolish collection of words.

Um, who are the domestic if not the citizens?

Disregarding your rudeness
( to which I choose not to lower myself to respond in kind )
the answer to your question
is those among the citizens who are
predatory criminals.
David

The one who constantly uses hugh coloured type despite many requests by many different members on many different threadfor you to stop. THAT is rude.

...
I got two e-mails within a day about this sad story.

One was from an organization that believes concealed weapons are the answer. If only those little Amish kids and their teachers had been packing, that might have solved it. I don't think so. The other was from the Mennonites, who were collecting contributions to help their Amish friends. You can reach them at the Mennonite Disaster Service, 1018 Main St., Akron, Pa. 17501. You should write "Amish School Recovery Fund" on your checks.

This is how I will respond and I hope you do too.

...

America, though fruitcake in national persona, isn't that difficult to figure out. Reducing gun ownership is a fairly simple matter. Merely legislate that all new mailboxes come pre-shot.

blatham wrote:

America, though fruitcake in national persona, isn't that difficult to figure out. Reducing gun ownership is a fairly simple matter. Merely legislate that all new mailboxes come pre-shot.

Ever consider how much fun having to learn Japanese in order to be a slave in a nation ruled by Hideki Tojo and his gang might be?

Canadians didn't save themselves from that; Americans who shoot M1's at mailboxes saved your sorry asses from that.

The Japanese general staff discussed invading North America at a meeting just prior to WW-II and Isaroku Yamamoto being the only person in attendence to have spent much time in America was asked what the problem was. He replied that getting past the 200,000 guys in uniform would be easy enough, but that the real problem was the 40,000,000 or so lunatics in the country who owned military grade weapons and practiced with them. "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" (Yamamoto's words).

Something to think about. Again, FDR's pre-war military had nothing to do with North America not being invaded in 41, and Canada for sure had nothing to do with it.

You should at least make sure you get your facts straight before making claims.

First of all, the name is Isoroku Yamamoto NOT Isaroku Yamamoto.

Secondly, he did not say the words that you attribute to him. He spoke of waking a sleeping giant. It was Admiral Hirohito who told Prime Minister Tojo, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Thirdly, Canada had made itself known as a mighty fighting force long before the U.S. ever entered the war.

Admiral Yamomoto is said to have advised the Japanese Emperor against invading the US, that "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." If there is once again a rifle behind every blade of grass, asymmetric warfare will, once again, fade into the dustbin of history. Lets hope we don't forget its lesson this time.