THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Not nearly enough, steve. Some so called Americans remain unconvinced that real defense from the predators who lurk everywhere in American society is if everyone straps on a flame thrower.

0 Replies

There is a very fundamental emotional and psychological dichotomy
in the choice of supporting or opposing freedom of self defense
and of swift access to life-saving emergency equipment.

It has to do with the basic choice between:

1 ) libertarian freedom and rugged individualism

or

2 ) authoritarian, collectivist government which is the
emotionally substituted mommy n daddy;
thay don 't wanna leave childhood, ( dare I say SISSIES ?? )
and this philosophy of government is their way of clinging to it.

Thay wanna be RULED with blind faith
in the Great Authority above,
instead of making their own decisions n running their own lives.

That 's the reason that the most fierce opposition
to the individual right to freedom of self defense is found among liberals.
( I can 't think of ANY conservatives who support gun control. )

Before around approximately the first half of the 1900s,
American citizens very commonly had personal defensive firearms,
and no one thought much about it. History does not record
that the streets ran red with blood and that thay went around
shooting up the town. I took a gun to school for " show & tell "
field stripped it, explained its functioning and got a good grade.
No one was even mildly upset.

I am under the impression that until around the First World War,
everyone was free in England to arm himself in self defense,
and commonly did so, with no great attendant carnage in England or Scotland.
( Please correct me, if I am in error; I do not pretend to be an expert
in the history of English anti-gun laws. )

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
Dave and cj seem to be living in the distant past.
Wake up, we are in the 21st century, and the world is different.

Human nature is not different in the 21st Century.
The advisability of SURVIVING a predatory attack
from animals or from criminals
( and of having the means to do so )
remains the same.

Quote:
Dave, for one, would allow ex-cons and the mentally diseased to have guns,
even automatic weapons. Are there not enough shoot-outs now?

U are CHANGING my position, Advocate.
That has never been my position.

I suggest that people who have proven themselves to be dangerous
shud be excluded from society by banishment from this Continent,
or permanently and securely confined.
I have also mentioned
that if such people are allowed to roam freely in polite society,
thay will do what thay damn well please,
including arm themselves with whatever thay choose,
including automatic weapons, if such be to their taste, REGARDLESS of any law.
Hint: CRIMINALS and LUNATICS don 't care about any law.
Thay don 't care what I allow; thay 'll do what thay damn well please
whether u or your laws like it or not.

Quote:
No one proposes taking guns from normal citizens,
or unduly restricting purchase by such people.

This is false.
Thay actually DID it in Chicago.

Quote:
Even the NRA is for some gun control.

Because it is a sell-out organization.
It shud be called the Naational COMPROMISE Ass.

When it compromises, and allows more gun control,
then a state of alarm arises among America 's 80,000,000 gun owners,
such that paid memberships skyrocket in the NRA,
whose leader then goes into executive session with the Board,
showing how membership has grown under his watch,
and demands a bigger cut of the pie.

Quote:
However, our resident gun nuts would endanger all of us.

Wud u please explain HOW ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

There is a very fundamental emotional and psychological dichotomy
in the choice of supporting or opposing freedom of self defense
and of swift access to life-saving emergency equipment.

there is no connection between supporting or opposing freedom of defence and putting guns in the hands of 5-year-olds. That's just complete lunacy from a demented psychopath. Nothing you post can be taken seriously because you have categorically presented yourself as a complete lunatic, who should never be allowed to hold a weapon, and probably shouldn't be allowed out of a padded room. You ARE the argument for gun control.

0 Replies

Every child should be taught about firearms as SOON AS THEY ARE CURIOUS. Period. Anything else is just plain stupid - but that is something the disarm-me-protect-me types embrace by default.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
There is a very fundamental emotional and psychological dichotomy
in the choice of supporting or opposing freedom of self defense
and of swift access to life-saving emergency equipment.

Quote:
there is no connection between supporting or opposing freedom of defence
and putting guns in the hands of 5-year-olds.

I probably will have to retreat slightly
in regard to age 5.
( Altho my mind goes back to Andrea Yates,
who drowned all of her several children in their bathtub.
She told of chasing and dragging back her eldest fugitive,
as he fled, after he discovered what mom was doing.
I wish he had been able to get his hands on a revolver, like my first one.
I believe he was about 6 or 7 years old.
If he had grabbed a gun, surely u 'd have told him to put it down,
because he was too young; just get drowned and forget it; right ? )

Quote:
That's just complete lunacy from a demented psychopath.

Nothing ad hominem about THIS guy, is there ??

Quote:
Nothing you post can be taken seriously
because you have categorically presented yourself as a complete lunatic,

Ah, the Fallacy of the Poisoned Wells rears its head.
Have u appled for a job as the Forum censor ?

Quote:

who should never be allowed to hold a weapon,
and probably shouldn't be allowed out of a padded room.

Are U sure that u are hysterical enuf there, Wilso ??
Maybe just a touch more shrill ??

Quote:
You ARE the argument for gun control.

In America, there can be no argument for gun control,
inasmuch as government has no authorized jurisdiction for that,
having been expressly deprived of it, as a condition of government's creation.

David

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Every child should be taught about firearms as SOON AS THEY ARE CURIOUS. Period.
Anything else is just plain stupid - but that is something the disarm-me-protect-me types embrace by default.

Yes.
There are people who have devoted faith
that any problem can be solved by putting another CHAIN
upon the citizens; that the LESS freedom that each of us has,
the better off he and everyone else will be.
Thay are certain that if there is any problem in society,
it is because there are NOT ENUF CHAINS upon the citizens.

These people are " liberals. "
David

0 Replies

Look what a quick Google search brought up. The successful hunter in the orange hat was all of six when he took this button buck.

In Michigan, it is illegal to hunt deer until you are at least 12. By then, most kids are lost to video games. At least they reduced it from 14, but not enough.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/kids.jpeg

0 Replies

In a biography of James Butler Kickok,
it is recorded that when he was 9 years old,
his mother put a rifle in his hands and told him
not to come back without lunch.

Inasmuch as thay liked to eat every day in that family,
that became paradigmatic.

David

0 Replies

Don't you guys realize that the second amendments allows all children, ex-cons, and the mentally diseased the right to bear arms. It is called FREEDOM.

0 Replies

I don't know whate state you live in Advocate, (Peurto Rico perhaps?), but none of that is true and you know it.

How about a nice helping of STFU.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I don't know whate state you live in Advocate, (Peurto Rico perhaps?), but none of that is true and you know it.

How about a nice helping of STFU.

I was, ironically, giving Dave's interpretation of the second amendment. Do you take issue with him? BTW, what is STFU?

0 Replies

It may very well be OSD's interpretation but that doesn't mean it's the truth. You presented it as such. Many interpret the 2A differently. Ted Nugent will tell you no law applies other than God's law - the right to self preservation. And in extreme situations, he's right.

Still, a child under 18 cannot own a gun, nor can an ex-con. That's the law. Period.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Don't you guys realize that the second amendments allows all children, ex-cons, and the mentally diseased the right to bear arms. It is called FREEDOM.

In that most States have certain limitations on your above listed "people who shouldn't have guns" (as you very well know), the argument is moot.

If push came to shove, I guess the observation should best be described as "Exceptions to the 2nd Amendment" (Singular, not plural.) Those NOT exempted from the 2nd Amendment have FREEDOM. (In this particular instance, anyway.)

I spent three years of my life in places where it was to be expected that "bad guys" would try to take my life at any time. For a number of years now, I have lived in places where the above is not true, except to note that there are still "bad guys" around. I am perfectly willing to let the Police take care of the "bad guys" with the singular exception of when it gets up front and personal, in which case all bets are off. Let's just call it the last insurance policy I never expect to need. Makes me feel "warm and fuzzy".

I've always tended to be an independent, self reliant, SOB anyway. :wink:

Halfback

0 Replies

Glad to see that cj and Half feel that gun control is constitutional. Dave, you are out there alone.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Glad to see that cj and Half feel that gun control is constitutional. Dave, you are out there alone.

Gun Control is a nice, tight grouping. All the laws you ask about are already on the books - and in some states, there are way, way, way too many. Illinois, Wisconsin, and now California come to mind. WTF is up with Arnold anyway? What a turncoat RINO.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Don't you guys realize that the second amendments allows all children,
ex-cons, and the mentally diseased the right to bear arms. It is called FREEDOM.

The 2nd Amendment simply denies any authority to government
to legislate in regard of possession of weapons,
the same way that government has no authority
to choose your religion for u and make u get to church on time.

It does not grant
dangerous criminals the right to remain
in contact with polite society.

It does not prevent schools
or parents from teaching competent handling of weapons.

That is the way it was until the early 20th Century,
or mid-20th Century ( depending on WHERE u live ).
No great ill effects fell upon America because of this freedom.

Gun control is good for CRIMINALS.
If I became a violent criminal,
I 'd want to have a state-sponsored monopoly on firepower.

0 Replies

Dave, I think you should hit those gun-control guys with Verdugo, notwithstanding that it doesn't support your position.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Quote:
It may very well be OSD's interpretation
but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Its not the truth because it is my interpretation;
its my interpretation because it is the truth.
I researched the history of the Bill of Rights,
and my information is the fruits thereof.

We know for a fact
what the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind,
because their writings survive them; thay were not secretive about it.
NONE of them -- none at all -- expressed any support of gun control.
Its known history; its not a mystery like trying to reconcile
Quantum Mechanics with Relativity Theory.

Thay were even intolerant of the notion of the existence of any police force
that wud or cud administer any such system,
let alone discrimination by a government
as to who cud defend his own property or his life
from the depredations of criminals or of animals.

Everyone shares an equal right to defend his life from violence.
Thay wud be shocked n scandalized at the NRA giving away the store.

Thus spoke the USSC,
of the Bill of Rights ( in a case concerning freedom of reproductive autonomy ):

"...by the express provisions of the FIRST EIGHT amendments to the Constitution"
rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL ...
It is a promise of the Constitution
that there is a realm of personal liberty
which the government may not enter." [emphasis added]
The 2nd Amendment is within "the first eight amendments".
In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5)

Quote:

Still, a child under 18 cannot own a gun, nor can an ex-con.
That's the law. Period.

That 's like saying that during the 1920s no one cud drink,
or that no one can get marijuana now,
and that no one can misrepresent his income to the IRS.

I 'm sure.

David

`

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, I think you should hit those gun-control guys with Verdugo,
notwithstanding that it doesn't support your position.

Well, I can only surmise that your thought
is indicative of how your mind operates;
sorry about that.

David

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know