Posted on 04/20/2007 4:04:44 AM PDT by Neville72
Signs of Intelligence?
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
By all means! I'm sure Fred knows the dif... I just wish everyone that knows better would state the issue correctly. It would go a long way for others to start getting a grip on the nature of their rights.
But I will take what I can get and be grateful Fred is considering doing this at all...
I thought it may never happen, someone who would stand up and speak the truth, not worry what the Washington press would say about them.
Ping to you Molly, if you haven’t read this yet
If my 1st choice of Tancredo does not get the nomination, and my second choice of Hunter does not get the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support Fred Thompson when he does.
C’mon, who the hell else ya gonna vote for, the liberal?
“This means we’re excluding most undergrads (beer swilling or not), and mainly talking about allowing FACULTY and grad students to carry.”
Most faculty in todays academia doesn’t know which end the bullet comes out and will, it can be shown, wet themselves and cry at the very sight of a (gasp) handgun.
“I’ve been waiting for a solid explanation as to why I should care about Fred Thompson’s presidential candidacy. It appears that I have just received one.”
That about sums it up.
A link for your article —
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwYzMyZmQ1YzQ1MDNmZTMyYzQ1Y2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=
You said — “We give 18 year olds full autos in the military, and grenade launchers, SAMS, and artilery.”
That only comes with the — *full force and power of the military* — to make them do exactly what they say, when they say it and how they say it — with no room for deviation.
If you have a similar circumstance in public life — as those 18-years-olds have in the military, let me know how that works...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “The most compelling testimony I ever saw for the right to bear arms was from the woman whose mother and father were killed in Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas. Her first name was Suzanne, but I can’t for the life of me remember her last name right now. She was testifying before some Senate committee, and she pointed at snarky UpChuck Schumer, and told him that she held him, and everyone who agreed with his ideas, PERSONALLY responsible for the death of her parents.”
She was interviewed on Fox News a couple of days ago. She is a good spokesperson....
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “What a great article! Can you provide me with the source, please?”
You can get it at my post #67...
Well, the main problem wasn’t the gun-free zone thing, it was the lack of fluid law (caused by budget restraints). This kid was ordered to an institution, and according to state law...if you’re there past three days you’ll be put in a sytem where you can’t get a gun for 5 years up to a lifetime.
Unfortunately the loophole is that this kid was let go due to budget restraints...before the third day could come. Almost every state has laws on the book that mentally ill people can’t have firearms. In this case the policy didn’t match-up with the enforcement.
WOW!!!!!! This torpedo just hit the water and appears to be headed right at the SS Rudy.
When I heard about this massacre the other day, the first thing I said to the person next to me was “this would have never happened if the other students had been packing”.
We just think differently here in Texas. I remember the Luby’s incident in Killeen. After that, Luby’s made it known to all that firearms are welcome at any Luby’s. Luby’s got it, but gun-grabbing libs and Rinos never will. Actually, I think they do get it. So did Hitler.
To the contrary, Mr. Thompson, they DO, indeed, mean something to that kind of person. They mean, "Fire at will."
One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
He first makes a statement in clear (“plainspoken” is the cliché) language that EVERY reader will agree with. He slips in the fact that there was lots of time to reload, preempting any suggestion that it was the nature of the arms (semi-auto, hi-capacity, etc.) that were to blame. Then, we learn that there is an answer to the question of how this all could happen.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
This is BEAUTIFUL language! “They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms” sounds like something Jimmy Stewart said as George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life. (“Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about . . . they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community.”) Everyone knows those cities are dangerous, and the association with excessive gun restrictions is inescapable.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
This guy doesn’t beat around the bush. He doesn’t say “studies show…”, because he is telling you that the statistics are CLEAR. As if you would need to be a moron or a dishonest politician to pretend that they weren’t. Crime is lower, and criminals pay attention to gun laws. These are the fundamental facts that refute the gun grabber’s excuse for denying freedom.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
He defines the camps: “they” and “us.” The reader is included in the group who is wrongly thought of by “them” as a potential murderer. “They” are to blame, and “they” overrode “law.” Bureaucrats essentially as law-breakers. Compelling, even for readers inclined to worry about guns on campus. The harsh reality of expulsion or firing is made clear. Good, plain language. No weasel words or politician-speak. And like a good litigator, he doesn’t even argue to the “jury” of his readers that the conduct or policy is bad or wrong. He presents the inarguable facts, and lets us come to the conclusion for ourselves.
In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
”Common knowledge.” That is a devastating blow to the gun-grabbers who would try to deny it. It’s not even open for debate. Only the conclusion may be debated, and with the structure set up here, Fred wins over the jury. The image of armed Israeli teachers calms those who think one can not learn with guns around, and makes us think of those targeted by terror.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
All phrased in the least alarming way. Not “students”, but “people over 21”, and the strict criteria are laid out.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on “the authorities” for protection.
BRILLIANT!!! The most important paragraph of this column, or any other on the subject. What he is saying is that those who would deny responsible adults the right of self defense are AUTHORITARIAN. Fred gets it. This is the foundation of our nation’s independence, and the belief of the most ardent gun rights defenders. Yet few Republicans would go beyond the “gun control doesn’t make us safer” argument, and cut to the core that gun control is about creating dependency on authoritarian government. For a viable Presidential candidate (as opposed to the estimable Ron Paul, or a gun-rights activist) to make this comment makes me stand on my seat and applaud.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled “shoe bomber” Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
”Normal people.” A great, simple phrase! Normal people like you and me. And Fred. After giving evidence the reader can not doubt, he offers the statistic that is consistent with the facts.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Invoking heroes. None of them government employees. Uplifting the human spirit.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
”Swayed by ideology.” This indicts the result, while still giving sympathy to these traditionally respected institutions. He’s not saying that the geniuses of academia are morons, he’s saying that they were misled by ideologues. But his tough “challenge” language shows the strength of his convictions.
Whenever I’ve seen one of those “Gun-free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don’t mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
“I’ve wondered...” A phrase that conjures up a homespun, dragging-the-boot-toe-in-the-dust kind of modesty. Not insistent bombast. The reader is drawn to a powerful conclusion, without being pushed. He could have said the signs “don’t mean anything” to a murderer, but he says “they don’t mean much,” which has a gentleness that is like an arm over the shoulder of an old adversary who is invited to become a friend. Folks, this is one smart dude. This stuff can’t be faked. Whether this was written in part by an aide or not, Fred truly understands the issue, and is extraordinarily wise about communicating to persuade.
Thanks!
Read Fred’s brief he wrote on the Clinton impeachment charges. It’s brilliant, IMHO.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
Good analysis and the article is a “keeper”. I would advise everyone to copy and keep it for future reference and for giving it to other people.
You called it a “brief” so I went there and LOL, it wasn’t brief... :-)
Driving an 18 wheeler - which I did as a 19 year old. I certainly could have plowed into a crowd and killed many.
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.