Posted on 02/05/2014 10:41:19 PM PST by rktman
I am told that enterprising sheriffs of the Wild West, fed up with the violence and lawlessness that often visited their towns, would ban the carrying of weapons inside the town limits. Visitors to the town would be asked to surrender their guns, with the promise that their hardware would be returned when they were ready to leave town.
Perhaps the common sense of those early days is still pertinent in these troubled times, when 9- and 10-year-old kids can be blown away in the sanctity of their classrooms, and when a congresswoman visiting a mall to mingle with constituents, or moviegoers enjoying the magic of a cinema experience, can be cut down by deranged gunmen.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegram.com ...
Criminals approve.
Lay some of that Clive jive on me, brother.
Haven’t the majority of places that so-called mass shootings have occurred in the last half century been “Gun Free Zones?” So, Jive Clive, you’re fifty years too late with your suggestion and it’s worked out to be a multiplier of murder not a reducer.
The places where mass shootings happen already run that way.
Off topic:
I have read every single headline on the latest articles page. You wanna know how many of them are relevent or newsworthy or of importance to any but wee few are?
NONE. Not a damn one worth a comment or worth even a second thought. Banging your head off a stone wall because it feels so good when it stops doesn’t work anymore.
Do we really need any more examples of how stupid anti-gunners are? Do we really care what some Pierce Morgan wanna-bee thinks?
And thus didst start the foundation of our modern gun grabbing liberals. I really don’t think that would have worked out very well, but to be generous to our dear liberals, if they can produce evidence the disarming of the honest actually DID work, versus the outlaw who would just carry it in (no metal detectors at that time), I’d reconsider.
Poorly written column. I was never sure what country he was talking about.
The topic is a good one because there is always a need for a “basic standard” for most things or there would be anarchy. However, in England, people are “blown” away on buses and subways, so there should also be a standard on who is allowed to have explosives, n’est pas?
I know that the last sentence was nonsensical, but it follows the illogic of the writer. He never explains what a “standard” is and how it would have to be defined re “gun control or licensing”.
By the way, parts of England have “no go” zones for police unless there are 2-3 of them, often armed. Gee, Merry Old England isn’t so merry anymore, is it?
Hey stoopit.
Why not have a uniform standard for the first amendment as well.
Prove you are capable of associating with other citizens and we’ll let you off the reservation.
Prove you are capable of associating with “Correct Citizens”.
Prove your religious beliefs, the sect you belong to and your are “reasonable, common sense and absolutely not injurious to anothers feelings.
Prove your penmenship, thoughts expressed in writing are those of a “Correct Citizen”.
On the 3rd amendment:
A “Correct Citizen”would wholly support their nation and armed forces.
As such, why wouldn’t you allow federal, state and local agent access to your domicile for the purpose of housing, feeding and providing facilities to maintain hygene?
You are an American, aren’t you?
On the 4th amendment....
You get the idea?
Your rights are sacrosanct and “the right of the people, shall not be infringed”.
The Bill of Rights presumes your God given rights are immune from government oversight, license or restriction until or unless you prove otherwise incapable of excersising those rights without violating natural law or the rights of others.
The 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens from a despotic or even democratic form of government, which will always seek greater power and control of the citizen, while centralizing their authority through an ever growing government.
What you are proposing is insane.
We’ve seen your movie before and I cannot bear to ever watch “Schindlers List” again.
You seek a perfect solution in an imperfect world.
The only realistic way to enforce your ideal would be a complete eviseration of the Bill of Rights, as your proxies(government agents) go door to door and search, by threat of force, every house, business, farm, wharehouse and automobile to remove any and all weapons.
You are wrong.
Depotic rule became passe July 4th, 1776 and Fascism was also proven time and again an anethma to humanity and an utter failure.
More liberal legal historicism... “they had laws like this... there are french laws like that... damn historical truth or if it was constitutionl or not”
And I am sure some cities still had slavery also back then etc...
Indeed. Uniform it is. Read my tag line for the sarcasm in how liberals read the second amendement.
The only way I could see it kind of making sense, is if that city got to be known as a mecca for duels. I can very well see even the most conservative sheriff then saying “Not here, gentlemen, this city is a no-duel zone.” But if that were the case, would our dear liberals tell us? Probably not.
I’ll bet “Little Bill” in Unforgivien is a liberal, and Clint is a conservative. A corrupt sheriff would fit right in Obamas America.
I know there were so many different hadji governments changes in Yemen, they have such a ban in the militarized city of Sanaa. However the historicism of the liberals will always ignore the cases of bandits smuggling in weapons into such cities or the obvious fact that surrounding country side did mandate to have a weapon to survive which in no way turned the Sheriff into a Federal Bloomberg.
There simply is no equivalency of politization of the cause as it is done today.
.... a Federal Bloomberg.
There simply is no equivalency of politization of the cause as it is done today.
... and liberals are using lies and strawman arguments again and again, comparing Apples and Oranges.
It wouldn’t be the same. There’s no need to play coy with these supposed counter examples. Make the most of them.
In fact... my somewhat wry mind (but that does help my creativity a bit, and in fact I find God Himself has a wry sense of humor) says... hmmm... standards... what are they originally... flags... yeah let’s flag um down....
Or, when the power of darkness comes in like a flood, the Lord will raise up a “standard” (again in the sense of a flag, to rally around in this case).
Tell our dear liberals to revere the Prince of Peace, and use their great liberal advertising powers to try to persuade everyone else to do the same, and sure ‘nuff, we’ll then get lots of peace!
Well, there is a case in the Bible for exile to Babylon encouraged by the prophets themselves because it was the only way to teach Israel its errors, sending it back to Egypt.
I definitely think that the liberal parts of America should be seceded or treated differently. They clearly have lost their rights and due process would show that. However to make it PC or satisfy political greed, those new slave states are at it again, claiming “Southern Independence” when in fact they want hegemony.
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.