Posted on 04/17/2007 2:55:09 PM PDT by gc4nra
_____________________________________________________________ This visitation of death against Virginia Tech University this week is a direct result of gun laws banning weapons within 1,000 feet of a school -- the victim disarmament zone is as advertised once more. Sure the shooter is to blame, but Congress shares the blame not only for shootings, but for any instance of disarming citizens who could have resisted with all legal authority and use of force. Why obfuscate or discourage this legal authority?
We’ll never keep weapons – knifes, bare hands, brute force and guns – out of the hands of the criminal, but we sure can disarm the honest. This is the concept, and to announce same.
Anti-independence officials think that somehow trying something that doesn’t work simply needs more work, or at least that's the claim. Victim disarmament zones is one of the better examples of this stubbornness.
But when does it become outright interference with the family where the obvious solution is ignored and the go-nowhere solution is repeated. The purpose is a widespread and ever-increasing move from personal independence to dependency on agencies. And people die in this kind of stubbornness.
Personal weapons are a right secured by law, (and for such good reason) but are viewed as anti-social in spite of such guarantees, and are banned more and more from the hands of loving parents and able citizens who are not criminals, and who could have been on scene to protect their family members or another’s child.
Now let me address Congress with this edition of Good For The Country, please.
In banning weapons from parents carrying on campus or workplace, you have sent two messages – in spite of the fact that a majority of states affirms right to carry as a reasonable and lawful use of force, Congress has done a very ugly and unpatriotic thing for communities nationwide.
In banning personal weapons in victim disarmament zones, Congress has said:
1. To citizens: "Don’t do anything until we get there."
2. To shooters; "You have four minutes."
This is not for peace or safety, but outrightly against the people of the United States. Being a former Los Angeles Paramedic, I can tell you that EMS teaches Citizen CPR and First-aid for one important reason: we cannot meet a life-saving response time of under three minutes.
Neither can law enforcement. Where does that leave kids?
But the legal authority of the people can be on scene as it is in other venues where shooters dare not go because they are uncertain as to who is armed. Legally armed. As in nearly all state sof the union, but not on school campus. Recognizing citizen authority must be part of any serious-minded approach to shootings in schools, workplace, churhces - everywhere.
It’s time to repeal all gun laws as illegal in their inception because police cannot arrive with a life-saving response time, (and because they have had no such duty to begin with since 1845); because the armed citizen is the first line of defense, and because individuals have all legal authority to act in defense of another. Why make schools different? Airports? Civil aircraft? Shopping malls. Why advertise them as victim disarmament zones?
An armed citizen could have dropped this shooter before the number began to rise.
An armed citizen could have stopped him. Instead, you stopped the armed citizen.
32 more dead, Congress.
Repeal all gun laws and respect the sovereignty of the citizen over the illusion that a criminal will obey laws you write.
_________________
John Longenecker is Chairman of the Good For The Country Foundation, a patriotic non-profit.
See www.GoodForTheCountry.org
Actually it is somewhat off base.Va had a bill last year to allow conceal and carry on college campus’s like VT.
VT fought against the law and it died in committee.
And the leaders at VT said their school was now safer because no one would be allowed to carry a concealed gun on campus.
I guess one person didn’t read the rule.
It was the VT board of trustees who initiated the “no guns on campus” rule.
Gun Free Zones = Free Killing Zones
There is blood on the hands of those trustees.
Other examples include communist regimes who, after striping the citizenry of arms proceeded to implement their pogrom's, the likes of Hitler, Stalin/Lenin, Pol Pot come to mind.
There were plenty of ex-military and guard students when I went to randog U. They'd make great deputies, and give them a tuition break for carrying.
Dang stupid worthless ignorant a#####e leftscum are just too incredibly stupid, dense, and worthless to understand that. The blood of 32 more people is on their hands, and all they want to do is pass more gun control.
It's unreal.
I do not understand why the people at VT did not fight back.
I do understand why they didn’t have guns (against the law), but why in heaven didn’t they throw books, shoes, desks, backpacks, anything loose at the creep, and attack him?
Why, in flight 93 were there so many willing to die to stop the hijackers, and on a college campus there was nobody willing to even try is quite baffling to me.
.....Bob
It is entirely possible some did try, but they're all dead now.
That (prior experience) could be considered a safeguard IMO. I was thinking more along the lines of evening activities (wink) where accidents and foolish behavior are more likely to happen. There is no legitimate excuse for everyone to be unable to defend themselves. This has happened before (on a smaller scale) and it will unfortunately happen again. The disarmed student and faculty idea needs to be rethought.
I have not heard yet if anyone fought back or not. is there a story out there about this?
Oh cripes, this worthless argument again.
Here are some questions for you:
(1) Would all students go through the process of getting a permit if they could carry on campus?
(2) Of those students who would, do you think they'd pull their firearm out over an argument? If so, can you provide ONE stinking example of where an 18 to 22 year old permit holder has done that in ANY state with shall issue permit laws?
(3) Many of our troops in Iraq are 18 to 22 years old -- do they have guns?
(4) How long would it take for a bunch of 18 to 22 year old students to kill off 30 people? Hint: More than a couple minutes. In fact, I don't believe that there have been 30 unjustified homocides by permit holders in the entire last 5 years, and that includes at least some 21 and 22 year olds.
(5) What, if anything else whatsoever, could have stopped this madman?
(6) Are there no safeguards in the shall-issue permit process?
OK, chew on that a while and get back to me again with "I don’t think that allowing the general student body to be armed is realistic unless considerable safeguards are taken." Frankly, I consider that statement to be as ####### as the argument that pilots shouldn't be allowed to carry guns because they might go nuts and shoot someone. (Hint: If a pilot goes nuts, him being armed is the LEAST of the passengers' worries.)
I have waited patiently for over 24 hours now to hear a story of bravery. So far, not a peep. It truly baffles me.
yes there is...but they will NEVER see it that way, now will they?
True i guess. But you would have thought rushing the guy in a crowd larger than the bullets in his gun would have come across someones mind as a better chance of survival rather than being shot like fish in a barrel at the whim of this nutcase.
It appears the dorm resident may have tried to stop the killer but at present things are so chaotic that one cannot rely on any news report (as usual). One report I read said the killer was quiet and methodical. NPR reported there was laughter.
Read post #12. The campus is not exclusively used for higher learning. I disagree with disarming everyone. I also disagree with arming everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.