Posted on 12/06/2007 6:28:27 AM PST by Pistolshot
My biggest fears may be realized.
I don't post vanities too often, but this issue has kept me up most of the night. The ramifications of the shooting in Omaha have yet to be felt and what follows is something that we all need to consider and prepare to combat.
Earlier this year I made the prediction there would be a mass killing by another ‘troubled’ teen with an ‘assault’ weapon on the innocent, in this case an SKS in Omaha. It would occur in a large setting where CCW was not allowed and once again set off the Assault Weapons Ban demand from the anti-gunners. Utah didn’t do it, nor did Virginia Tech, because those didn’t use ‘assault weapons’ for their mayhem.
Now, that has come to pass, and in the heartland of America. The Omaha mall has posted signs requiring citizens to enter unarmed, and just about everyone complies, I would guess. In this instance, I would say EVERYONE obeyed this posting.
I, for one, have made numerous statements here on FreeRepublic that I will not ever go unarmed anywhere I go, except onto Federal property, or the courts. In the case of the shooter, his troubled past led him to do the abomination now covered by all the networks.
Nebraska has a ‘Shall-Issue’ CCW law, which means if you pass the requirements, you get a permit to carry concealed. Once again, the inability of a business, that doesn’t understand the dynamics of CCW, post a sign saying NO WEAPONS ALLOWED, and thereby leaving the innocent, and the capable from defending themselves.
The anti-gun people will scream something needs to be done about these weapons. I foresee legislation to increase in the age to 21 for ANY firearm purchase. As it is now, at age 18 you can buy a rifle or shotgun. I also foresee the Democrat controlled congress to bring the dreaded McCarthy Assault Weapons Ban(H.R. 1022) to the table for consideration and passage, and then all hell will break loose in the campaign.
For those of you who do not know what this bill is about check this link. H.R. 1022
The premise is to eliminate just about any weapon that is semi-automatic, be it rifle or shotgun, any magazine of 10 rounds or more, and the controlled transfer of any of the listed ‘assault weapons’
Now, why is this my biggest fear?
President George W. Bush promised Congress he would sign this legislation if it ever came to his desk. He said that with a Republican controlled Congress knowing it would never happen, but we are not in 2001, we are in 2007, a national campaign in progress, and a Democrat controlled Congress.
It is now a matter of time when we see this legislation come to pass, gun-shows will become extinct, and prices on 'assault weapons' will skyrocket again. Prepare to be swamped with ads and articles calling for this legilation
What will not happen is the look into the pharmaceuticals that have contributed to the problem of these troubled young men. Prozac , Paxil , and other Anti-Depressants have been incidental in these shootings since Columbine, yet NO ONE has called for more control over the dispensing of these drugs on our young. It’s the catch all of the psychiatric care of our children.
This is where we need to bring the discussion, and away from the firearm issue. It will do us all well to learn more about what the drugs dispensed to tour kids will do to them now, and in the future
Prepare yourselves my FRiends, there is a new storm coming.
She is not up for relection and can beat her drum loudly, and she WILL get support for it from the radical left.
I was wondering about that. Some malls and stores in Virginia and West Virginia required patrons to compromise their ability to defend themselves. I do not frequent these places.
When a mall or any other public business bans legal concealed carry, I think they assume the total and absolute responsibility of ensuring their customers safety. The mall company should be made to pay millions in damages to the victims.
If this were the case now, insurance companies would not allow their clients to ban legal concealed carry.
Too true.
“It’s worse than that. Some of the leading candidates for both parties are pro-gun control.”
MITT ROMNEY
““Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,”
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
And a LIBERAL, GUN-GRABBER like Giuliani is the RIGHT MAN AT THE RIGHT TIME to lead that storm!!!
I am not a one-issue voter, but 2nd Amendment issues are at the top of the list.
If they don't understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they don't understand America, and deserve nothing but contempt.
Hopefully, some sleazy lawyer will crawl out from under a rock and sue the s**t out of the mall for those signs.
I agree ... that would require the victims or estates thereof to sue the mall. I would love to be a juror in such a case.
"I do not frequent these places."
Simple choice to make, at least when we are not requred to enter.
Shop like a rat in a cage or don't shop there.
Ga's ccw laws are a little better, but they're still no great shakes either.
There's a mighty long list of places where carry is verboten, like any restauraunt that happens to sell demon alky-hol or, of course, the catchall "public gatherings".
This kind on nonsense needs to be remedied pronto. Laws that turn good people into criminals are never the answer. Dealing with criminals and the insane in a responsible manner is what will turn the tide.
And remember: Concealed means concealed, folks.
but Rudy most certainly IS the most militant GUN-GRABBER among the candidates.
“The Omaha mall has posted signs requiring citizens to enter unarmed”
That creates a guaranteed unarmed-victim zone.
I hope the mall owners are sued for every dollar they are worth.
Nice post, ps.
Per the MSM, the Dhims and the inner party, the American public (taxpaying,
law-abiding) cannot be trusted with firearms, regardless of the 2nd Amendment.
The arrogance of the ruling class knows no bounds.
— William Burroughs, 1992
Great quote.
The definition of “assault rifle” is slipping. I had never thought of an SKS as an “assault rifle” even under the bogus definition used by the media today.
I suppose that an “assault rifle” is any rifle that someone wants to ban.
Carolyn
Simply put, i will not patronize an establishment if I have to disarm to do it. Whatever I need that they may have I can get elsewhere.
Using the banks drive-up window while armed rather than disarm to go inside is one instance.
“I suppose that an “assault rifle” is any rifle that someone wants to ban.”
Pretty much, I remember the first time I saw a 9mm pistol described as an “assault pistol”.
I have seen these signs. Concealed means concealed. Unless they have a metal detector set to figure out if my weapon is setting it off or my car keys, I tend to ignore the sign.
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.