Posted on 04/20/2007 2:07:00 PM PDT by madconservative
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Oops. Here it is. Perhaps I typed “intelligence” incorrectly in the search, which would be ironic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820535/posts
I’m not one who has joined the love fest over Thompson but this is a great piece.
“Signs Of Intelligence? (Fred takes a stand for gun rights)”
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?
I felt the same way. He’s not a dream come true or anything, but I am starting to feel like beggars can’t be choosers, and I am certainly a beggar at this point.
It’s definitely a good article. I’ll keep this one.
DON’T BE MISLED-—WE’LL WIN WITH FRED
Ah, the ol' rallying cry. Vote for the (R) --good. Vote for the (D) --bad.
I heard it in 1999 when everyone wanted us to vote for Duhbya.
In 2001, Duhbya gave us the New Alliance Task Force which, among other things, directed the FDIC to relax the rules controlling what banks could accept as a valid ID. At Duhbya's direction, banks could, and did, start accepting Mexican Matricular Consular cards as valid ID, even though they may as well have been issued through bubblegum machines.
I heard the same rallying cry in November 2004 even though Duhbya had, in June 2004, signed the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. If it is approved by Congress, the Mexican illegal aliens will be eligible to apply for US Social Security benefits after having worked (illegally) in the US for only 6 quarters (18 months). In contrast, US citizens (read: you and I) can only apply after we've worked for 40 quarters (10 years). Not only that, but under the terms of the agreement, the Mexican illegal aliens can apply for, and receive US Social Security benefits for the Mexican (national) wives and Mexican (national) children, even if their wives and children have never stepped foot in the USA --ever. So, not only does Duhbya want US citizens to pay US Social Security benefits to the 20+ million Mexican illegal aliens already here, but he wants us to pay US Social Security benefits to the untold millions of Mexicans back home in Mexico.
So, please, spare us the rallying cry that only takes into account the (R) or (D) trailing the candidates last name.
Instead, how about voting for the candidate who actually cares about this country and it's citizens?
(If you have to ask me who to vote for, then you shouldn't be voting because you're not paying attention)
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults...
Hey, Fred...who are your rights granted by again?
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.
Read his other pieces- you’ll get a glimpse of why some of us think so highly of this guy:)
A very thoughtful analysis, you come very close to explaining what those of us who support him so strongly are hard pressed to articulate.
Excellent.
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 expect that it meant "happy hunting".
“That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens.”
So that logically raises the question of why anyone would fear learning Chaucer while sitting next to your fellow classmate who is carrying?
(Is Chaucer still taught in college?)
PING to # 12
Superb.
You arrived at the conclusion he led you to. And the reader thinks that he came up with the idea, not Fred.
Thank you for the ping. ((SE Mom))
Placemark, so I won;t forget to read it after my dinner.
I'll admit 'honor' would be a better term, but it took me awhile to come up with it. Mr. Thompson's recognition that the Second Amendment isn't about "sporting purposes" is more important, IMHO, than his wording here.
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.