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.
You said — “Driving an 18 wheeler - which I did as a 19 year old. I certainly could have plowed into a crowd and killed many.”
Well, you didn’t follow the post that I was answering. I wasn’t answering the question — “What are 18-year olds capable of doing?” And neither the question, “Are 18-year olds capable of killing a lot of people?”
That wasn’t the question posed in this series of questions and answers. Let’s follow it back to the beginning, so you can get the “drift”....
First item (post #6) — “Giving guns to 18 year old beer-swilling frat boys?!?!”, keep in mind that most places you need to be 21 to get a CCW.”
Second item (post #20) — “We give 18 year olds full autos in the military, and grenade launchers, SAMS, and artilery.”
And then, my post (post #68) — “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.”
So, if you get the drift now, you’ll see it has nothing to do with “How many people can 18-year olds kill if they wanted to?”
It has to do with the fact that someone posed that the *justification* for giving “18 year old beer-swilling frat boys” the ability to carry — was that they were “shooting it up” in the military.
And thus, my answer to that was — not without *extreme authority* over them — they’re not doing that. If they step out of line and disobey orders and/or do something serious — they’re going to end up in super big trouble (which may ruin the rest of their lives), especially if they’re fooling around with weapons.
Therefore, having 18-year olds in the military handling weapons (especially with all the training they get) — is *no justification* for allowing them to get these licenses in the “civilian arena” at 18 years old. in fact, it should *stay* at 21 years old. And if it isn’t at 21 in some places, it should be made to be 21.
So, if 18-wheelers has something to do with or connection to the extreme authority that the military wields over 18-years olds in maintaining *control* over them — let me know... I just don’t see it.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Under current federal law, 17-45 year olds are already members of the militia (btw this is has been pretty much the same since 1792). Training or not, experience or not, whether you like it or not, they are members of “the people” and have 2nd Amendment rights.
You said — “Under current federal law, 17-45 year olds are already members of the militia (btw this is has been pretty much the same since 1792). Training or not, experience or not, whether you like it or not, they are members of “the people” and have 2nd Amendment rights.”
Now, do the 18-wheelers fit in here somewhere, or did I miss something???
But, if 18-wheelers don’t enter into the discussion, then that’s fine. We’ll just put the 18-wheelers aside for the moment. We’ll just go to what you said...
The individual states can make the laws regarding the regulations controlling the use of “concealed carry” — and they do. They can say *no concealed carry* if they want. And they can make the regulations for who gets it, any-which-way they want (of course, all of this subject to the legislature, the governor, the people and the political process). There *is no guarantee* or Second Amendment Right — for *concealed carry* — period!
And so, if (and when) they set that concealed carry to 21 — that’s what it is, regardless of what you say in your reference. It has absolutely *no bearing* on the concealed carry laws.
Furthermore — it should be that way in all states, with it being 21 years old and not 18 for that concealed carry.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — Oh..., and please note (before we get off-track on this discussion) what the article above was talking about that generated this whole discussion, especially with the post #6, which referenced post #1 — and this line is the pertinent line — “Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons.” And thus, we’re talking about the *laws* regarding *concealed weapons* and *no-gun-zones*.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821058/posts
You can also type keyword "hupp" into the search box and find related articles about her.
Best regards,
Thanks for that link.
Great job. Always found Fred refreshing. You have put words to the “why”.
Inasmuch as a government physically *cannot* fully protect a disarmed society, it being totally impossible,the amount of taxes paid is moot. Furthermore *any* public official advocating this, knowing full well the impossibility of delivering the service, is guilty of willful fraud...
the infowarrior
awesome analysis...
i’ll put your name in the hat as speechwriter for FDT’s campaign.
Mr. Thompson nails it! BUMP and SUPPORT FRED THOMPSON!
awesome analysis...
i’ll put your name in the hat as speechwriter for FDT’s campaign.
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.