Posted on 04/20/2007 1:49:09 AM PDT by Oakleaf
But if they did that, who would be left to run the country?
And I've never even watched that show of his, not one single episode.
L
Us, that is who would be left. And the first thing that the “rest of us” would need to do would be to bulldoze the UN and chase them out of the country screaming (along with all the Tories in the country).
People who want to do something so they can feel good about themselves. The number one problem this week is that the kid needed help and nobody wanted to take responsibility for that.
And those of us that have a problem with the idea of stronger background checks don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, we have a problem with how the government determines who is mentally ill.
I'm a white, married, conservative, portfolio manager in his 40's, who comes from a military family, and is a competitive skeet shooter. To your average woman's studies professor, I am insane. It can become a very subjective definition. and we don't trust government to define the shades of grey. Tey've proven poor at doing so in the past.
I think that's why I think it's best that the government makes an error on the side of liberty.
A few items you can carry anywhere in the world, which are not weapons, pencils, mechanical pencils and pens, spray deodorant. The pens and pencils become knives, the spray deodorant and maybe hair spray become OC, since they contain alcohol, and an adhesives.
Your ability to survive, will be your desire to kill the bad guy.
There.
He is a plain spoken gentleman who appears to have some steel. Reminds me of my grandfather in a way.
That is you kill the bad guy.
By dropping it down there on the east side, we empower these petty dictators and thieves to do and say in public, what they would otherwise only do outside our view.
Nothing good will ever come of the UN, except our knowledge of what shameful things they are pulling off.
IMHO that's worth a couple bucks.
Ugh .... my spelling teacher is spinning in her grave right now ....(as is Juan Valdez)
My ‘end goal’ is to live. Even if I don’t ‘kill the bad guy’, if I get to go home again I am happy.
But, that’s just me. If I have to ‘pull the trigger’, you can bet it will be right through the ten-ring, but that can prove to be a real hassle if you don’t have a backhoe handy.
Cleanup can be pretty gross also, don’t expect the CSI guys to bring any mops and sponges. By the time they let you back in all of the ‘goo’ smells ‘funky’. Homeowners won’t cover carpet or paint. The neighbors look at you funny for a while, but, hey - you do get your name in the paper.
For what it is worth, GOA's and JPFO's responses were far better than what is being alleged here:
Aftermath Of Tragedy: GOA Defending Freedom
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Our hearts and prayers truly go out to all of those affected by Cho Seung-Hui's evil actions. But not even senseless, brutal murder justifies taking away the God-given rights of the law-abiding.
It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are denied their right of self-defense.
In fact, pro-gun forces just last year tried to get the Virginia legislature to address the problem. The bill to allow permit holders to carry on state-supported college campuses died, due in no small part to rabid opposition from Virginia Tech itself.
VT spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious that the bill would not pass: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The unfortunate irony continues when one recalls that not long ago, two students at nearby Appalachian School of Law managed to stop a gunman at that institution. Happily, they were able to dash off-campus to retrieve their guns from their vehicles.
Four GOA spokesmen (one based in downtown D.C. and three at our Springfield, VA office just outside the Beltway) are working non-stop -- doing literally interview after interview -- making certain that the above points reach the public.
GOA has appeared on Fox News, ABC, CNN, BBC -- lots of alphabet soup networks -- as well as countless talk shows like Michael Reagan and Lars Larson. GOA spokesmen have been heard in every major radio market around the country and have done interviews with large print media outlets, such as the Associated Press and U.S. News & World Report.
The overall message that GOA is delivering is that gun prohibitions are part of the problem, not the solution.
We can expect some forms of new gun control to be pushed in the U.S. Congress. The Democrats control Congress, but more importantly, anti-gun politicians control the Democrat party. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- gives free rein to virulently anti-gun House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), literally anything can make it to the floor of the full House.
Conyers' counterpart in the Senate is Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), whose GOA rating of "F" is well-deserved. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also earned an F. Gun owners will have to be especially vigilant in the coming weeks to block any new attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
And whereas the predictable media stampede to give voice to the possibility of such new gun control is certainly there, it does not seem to have the same "this simply must happen now" tone that it did after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. Indeed, the idea of firearms for self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction. Which should not be all that surprising, given a Research 2000 poll which showed that 85% of Americans find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" in stopping a massacre.
ACTION: For now, stay tuned for future alerts. (If any anti-gun bills start moving on Capitol Hill, GOA will be counting on you to contact your legislators in record numbers.) And pray for all of those whose loved ones were injured or killed at Virginia Tech.
April 18, 2007
Why We Cannot Just Be Quiet and MournIn the hours and days just after the mass murder-suicide at Virginia Tech last Monday, many people felt it would be more sensitive and polite if the advocates for gun rights would sit quietly and allow the personal and national mourning to take place without a lot of gun policy arguments.
We at JPFO considered the sensitive and polite approach. We certainly feel terrible for the victims and for the families and friends whose lives are shattered by the horrendous crime. The deep evil of the murders makes it all the harder to come to terms with that sickening event. We agree that it would be best if we, as a nation, could gather together with the survivors in national mourning.
But we could not just be sensitive, polite and quiet, for two key reasons. First, we know that the enemies of defense rights always capitalize on strong emotions of the moment to drive their policies.
The Brady Campaign, for example, released a message almost immediately that called for more national "gun control" and said: "We are building a crescendo of public outcry to ensure that action is taken. We are aggressively rallying support among allies for our solutions."
Those benighted people, who think that making everybody defenseless is a good plan, have already swung into action. Their policy goals ride on strong emotions, not on reason and practicality.
If we stay quiet while the anti-self defense crowd defines the issues and whips up emtions, then we lose. We lose by being absent and by giving the appearance of conceding we are wrong about self-defense. We lose by letting emotional appeals go unchallenged by careful rational thought. We know also that a bad law driven by high-emotions in Congress and the media will be extremely hard to eliminate later.
A second reason we could not just stay quiet: gun owners have been made to feel guilty for having guns, just because one suicide-murderer misuses a firearm in such an horrific way. In this moment of national focus, many gun owners don't remember some of the key reasons that we have the right to keep and bear arms. Under pressure, many gun owners cannot respond to challenges, and that makes us all look shallow or unprincipled.
Talk host Bill O'Reilly, for example, took to the airwaves the following day to claim that Virginia's gun laws are not strict enough. O'Reilly urged that a 7-day waiting period is necessary, that the instant background check is not enough. A caller to his radio show pointed out the several procedures in Virginia that a buyer must pass through, and said that the 7-day waiting period was not needed.
O'Reilly replied by challenging the man to explain why he couldn't wait 7 days to get a Glock? Why did the man need to take immediate possession?
The caller was unable to answer the question -- because he was feeling defensive and cornered and somehow guilty. The answers to O'Reilly's challenges are:
- a woman who is being stalked should not have to wait 7 days to obtain the means to protect herself from a potentially armed madman,
- the police owe no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Blocking a person from getting defense tools is to cripple the endangered citizen's ability to protect himself or herself,
- the suicide-murderer in this case had planned his crime carefully, such that a 7 day waiting period would have had zero effect upon him.
We cannot let the anti-defense people and the ignorant media personalities command the policy discussion while we are sensitively and politely silent. We wish it were otherwise. Innocent lives depend upon the right to keep and bear arms, so we must protect it, even in times of tragedy and grief.
- The Liberty Crew
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I just read the Second Amendment againt and I don't see anything that limits the right to possess a firearm to law-abiding, mentally stable people. While that might be advisable in modern society, the mechanism for achieving that goal is not through legislation, but through a Constitutional amendment.
The GOA has never accomplished a single thing in the last seven years since I have been a member of FR. I have even asked GOA if they have ever done anything on their own and never received an answer.
You’re wasting your money by joining the GOA unless you think spam emails are worth something.
Check the banglist of the accomplishments of the NRA. Castle Doctrine, the lawsuit in behalf of the Katrina victims with the SAF, CCW laws, Manufacturer’s Protection Act, CCW protection in cars on private property....
The Brady bunch fear the NRA. They don’t fear the GOA. They don’t even know they exist.
You cannot give an inch to liberal rats. They will take that inch, consider it a sign of weakness and load up the bill with every 2nd amendment infringement they can think of.
If the NRA insists on this measure, we need to get something in return - forbidding the ATF bureaucrats to write legally binding regulations would be one. Another could be the national right to conceal and carry.
If we are going to have the check at all then let's make it accurate.
I’d trust Dingell and the NRA to come up with some good changes. The problem is that any new legislation will be loaded up with crap by the Democrats and nothing will happen. Same as always.
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.