(and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.Posted on 12/18/2012 11:14:27 PM PST by neverdem
A gunman whose name we do not need to memorialize took advantage of our gun-control laws to slaughter 20 children and six adults in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.
What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.
Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones.
One measure of insanity is repeating the same failure time after time, hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun-free zones are a lethal insanity.
Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. When I was there in the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.
The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?
During the decade of the Clinton ban on semiautomatic rifles (the so-called assault weapons) and high-capacity magazines, crime did not go down. Reinstating it would simply be another example of repeating the same failed policy and being surprised with the same failed result.
We must tell our elected officials that they are acting as the criminals' friends as long as they continue to support legislation that protects only criminals, not decent people.
Oh, and we must also insist that these criminal-friendly elected officials not even try to blame gun owners and our "gun culture" for what a criminal did.
Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, most of the victims might still be alive.
Click here to read this article on USA Today
they know it won’t work. We just need to corner them with facts and data and force them to admit it. We don’t have to argue that our way will work, only that their way won’t. That’s where Larry got into trouble with Soledad Obrian.
The way the Gun Free School Zone Act was written, even off duty police can’t carry their guns into schools. Feds who can fly armed, on or off duty, can’t either. Great plan. Schools are now the most unsafe place you can go in this country. Every other public “gun free zone” has some security organization that is supposed to protect it.
Restrictions on the firearms owned by Americans is not - and has never been - about ‘what works.’
It’s about *ssholes in government careers seeking to exercise their political muscles by j*rking off everybody else in the nation.
In fact, that constitutes ninety percent of everything political in the United States: EPA restrictions, Global Warming hysteria, anti-tobacco zealots, the list goes on and on, you name it.
Diane Feinstein's plan calls for an immediate ban on sales and transfers of all AR and AK style weapons. Those currently in possession can remain in possession, but cannot be sold, transferered, or bequeathed to any other person.
In one generation they will all be confiscated by the government.
Not only do they know it won't work [to stop school shootings,] they don't care. The fact that Feinstein has been working on the legislation for over a year proves that this legislation isn't to stop school shootings, it is to disarm the public.
While the NRA is cowering.....Pratt and GOA are defending our rights
Ha, guess my son is getting several slightly used but well maintained firearms for Christmas. Being a nice soon, he will of course let Dad take them to the range etc.
They do not want it to work; it is not intended to work. What it is intended to do is make possible the arrest for those found to be in possession of said item[s]. Or its purpose is to create more felons.
What do you mean it didn’t work? How many “assault” rifles did you buy during the ban? Not one because you couldn’t! The ban worked...it’s purpose was to keep you from owning a new gun... It had nothing to do with saving lives, there is no such thing as “assault” rifle, it is a politically created word. A new ban wouldn’t save lives, it would keep you from buying a gun...that’s what they want and that’s the purpose of any ban.
I wonder how many were purchased before the ban went into effect?
The difference is that in 1994 not so many people owned tactical rifles. Now everyone has one. Its become mainstream. Trying to ban them now is like closing the barn door after the horse has left. It will create way too much of a firestorm.
Bans won’t work, but the American people think they will.
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.