Posted on 12/16/2012 4:04:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Many people are insisting we all sit down and have a thoughtful, calm reflection on the Second Amendment after the Connecticut massacre. Others, particularly on the Left, are more forthright and are demanding more gun control. If we are to engage in the former, however, I want to share some of the arguments Rep. Louie Gohmert made today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
The segment with Gohmert began with footage of Eric Holder saying we need to discuss who we are as a nation, talk about the freedom and rights we have, and how they can be used in a responsible way. In other words, he wants to talk about gun control. Rep. Gohmert’s response, which brought up Fast and Furious, was priceless:
“Well I think coming from him that’s really important to note coming from a man who’s in a department that forced the sale of guns to people that would bring about the death of people like Brian Terry and there should be national outrage about Mexicans, our neighbors, 200 or more that have been killed by the guns his department have forced to be sold, so he’s right. And Sen. Durbin is right but the conversation we’ve got to have has got to have everybody open-minded. I mean, we all react emotionally that’s why we’ve all shed tears…”
Wallace then brought up the Aurora movie theater massacre and Gohmert making the argument in its aftermath for more people to carry weapons to prevent a similar situation from happening. Wallace asks: “Do we really want folks in movie theaters, and shopping malls, and schools, armed?
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
Gohmert responds: “Once we have this actually open dialogue about the situation you find out…every mass killing of more than three people in recent history has been in a place where guns were prohibited, except for one. They choose this place. They know no one will be armed. You know, having been a judge, having reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves and hearing the heroic stories of the principal lunging trying to protect…Chris, I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office locked up so when she heard gun fire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids.”
Then the obligatory question by the media: Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Wallace says these are weapons created for law enforcement, for the military, but why does the average person need these “weapons of mass destruction”?
Gohmert: Well, for the reason that George Washington said: A free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government if they know that the biggest army is the American people, then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George. That’s why it was put in there. Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? And that’s why it is important to not just look emotionally – emotionally our reaction is to immediately say lets get rid of all guns…you do it as a judge. You react emotionally but you use your head and you look at the facts and the facts are that every time guns have been allowed, concealed carry have been allowed, the crime rate has gone down. Washington, DC ought to be the safest place in American and it’s not…”
It would be kind of interesting if someone would suggest tasers for teachers. I suspect their reactions would be interesting and quite telling.
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings,and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws.
A Study by Profs. John Lott and William Landes
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637
How do Multiple Victim Public Shooters Decide Where to Attack?
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-do-multiple-victim-public-shooters.html
·
Basically an armed defender (good guy/gal ) is the only thing stopping these nuts (other than when/unless they kill themselves)
I think a bill to allow teachers who volunteer to go through defensive handgun training would be great to allow qualified staff to be armed. We already trust teachers with our kids all day, do we not? Conversly, if we cannot trust them with a gun, why trust them with our kids?
First of all let me say, Gohmert 2016.
Seondly, I see tasers and mace as the best immediate remedy. All classrooms could have this and if teachers or principals hear shots they can attack from all sides.
I’m also big on a panic button with a recognizable alarm in the school and automatic police notification. Teachers hear that and have mace or tasers they know to prepare.
Instead of the tired gun control response why don’t these liberals offer some real solutions that can happen right now. Maybe even take some of Big Bird’s bonus and fund it.
First of all let me say, Gohmert 2016.
Seondly, I see tasers and mace as the best immediate remedy. All classrooms could have this and if teachers or principals hear shots they can attack from all sides.
I’m also big on a panic button with a recognizable alarm in the school and automatic police notification. Teachers hear that and have mace or tasers they know to prepare.
Instead of the tired gun control response why don’t these liberals offer some real solutions that can happen right now. Maybe even take some of Big Bird’s bonus and fund it.
How about if they change the protocol from locking yourself in a room to gathering with other teachers and rushing the attacker? This shooter had to reload 5-6 times, and we all know the hit ratios, so it’s unlikely a group of teachers would have been stopped. Give the teachers kevlar to make it even less risky.
We need the equivalent of air marshalls inside schools. Some teachers and administrators are secretly trained and armed.
I would prefer an AR-15, chambered for 7.62 * 39 mm, with a 20” barrel, a laser and a large clip.
I would feel comfortable taking a narrow shot in a crowd with this weapon and have more hitting power with the bigger round.
There is no reason why there shouldn’t or couldn’t be auxillary police offices at every public school.
At a minimum, Speaker of the House.
Yeah for Gohmert. He was the only one that voted again the Congressional bill removing “lunatic” from the words that we can use to describe our current Congressmen. Guess the truth hit too close to home for the other 400+ that voted for it.
Do you mean an AR10 maybe?
Someone posted this over at DU. They are absolutely falling down and foaming at the mouth over the thoughts of an armed teacher.
Whether we want people in theaters, shopping malls and schools armed is a moot point; they are there and they kill people.
The question to be asked is Do we want the killers to be the only people armed?
In Aurora 12 people were killed and 58 wounded. Had one other person been armed in the theater the number of killed and wounded could have been drastically reduced to a number counted on one hand.
The key to solving any problem is asking the correct questions. The correct question is Do we want the crazed killers to be the only ones armed?
I agree with the sentiment, but the 5.65 NATO cartridge is capable of more penetration than might be wise in a school. How about a shotgun with #1 or #2 buckshot?
Same with Huffpo.
bttt
State Sen. Trotter’s Gun Not Registered, Prosecutors Say(IL)
Arrest raises questions on Trotters job at security firm with city deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/16849836-418/state-sen-trotters-bond-set-at-25000.html
I’ll take Dem’s seriously on gun control when they have to hang for the same crimes we do.
He should lose his job ,have a criminal record and be barred from public service.
U.S. Murders: All 13,636; Hands and Feet 801; Assault Rifles: less than 348
The FBI murder statistics do not differentiate between types of rifles. There are about 100 million rifles in the United States. In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.
So why is the left so intent on banning rifles that are the most suitable for militia use (clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution), when they are used so rarely in murder?
That is an excellent idea. Why maintain separate facilities when municipalities can combine them and get the side benefit of on-site security?
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.