Guns apparently good for us, but not for them

Zanesville Times Recorder ^ | 21 December 2002 | Jim Siegel

[Deadeye Division]

A majority of Ohio's state lawmakers will tell you that allowing people to carry concealed handguns is a good thing.

They'll point to other states that allow it, noting gun-related incidents have showed no increase. They'll even tout how overall crime in those states has declined.

[Deadeye Division]

bang

[ClearCase_guy]

By this logic, anyone should be allowed to bring a gun on to an airplane, or into a court hearing. No more metal detectors!

Perhaps some people feel this way, but I think most people recognize some limits. It's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Yes, you have free speech, but it is possible to push it too far.

[Salvation]

And what does Frist say about guns? I really want to know because I think he is against them.

[Puppage]

"It is clearly not a good idea for people to carry a concealed weapon into a bar, where people's judgment has the great potential to be impaired."

So, leave your weapon at home.....have a belly full of liquer, then hop into your 3,000 pound weapon & go home. Yep, sure do make sense to me.

[Centurion2000]

They do the exact same thing here in Texas as well. No guns in federal or state buildings and courthouses.

Possible rationale: too easy to engineer a breakout.

[Kerberos]

"While you could replace the word "bar" with "Statehouse" and that sentence still makes perfect sense"

LOL.

[Lysander]

"It is clearly not a good idea for people to carry a concealed weapon into a bar, where people's judgment has the great potential to be impaired."

And now we clearly jknow why it is not a good idea to carry a gun into a government building... impaired judgement seems to abound in those places too!

[Archangelsk]

It also banned guns from places that serve alcohol, as Sen. Jeff Jacobson explained: "It is clearly not a good idea for people to carry a concealed weapon into a bar, where people's judgment has the great potential to be impaired."

While you could replace the word "bar" with "Statehouse" and that sentence still makes perfect sense..."

Roaring, laughing on the floor, scaring the dog. I imagine the intent of the author was to compare state legislators to drunks. Oh, the irony, thanks for the post.

[EBUCK]

While this writer really is pooh-poohing the anti gun mantra he has a point. That point is that politicians are hypocrites, liars and will say/do anything for a few votes. And when it comes down to it they know that what they do every day would have been a death sentence in the early days of this country. They know it and quite a few law abiding, gun carrying citizens know it.

EBUCK

[Ravenstar]

Read your second amendment of your Constitution. Then look up the word "infringed". You will find that no laws of restriction are allowed. Remember the second amendment is specifically forbading any laws of restriction at any level for "law abiding citizens". Criminals can get more severe penalties for use of arms but that has no bearing on the second amendment.
Yes you by Constitution are allowed to bring a gun on board an airplane but the Federal Government has gotten so large it routinely ignores the Constitution because it figures it will get away with it by shear inertia.

Notice that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't say only as long as you are not traveling. It says you are safe from search except by issue of a warrant based on probable cause. It gives no conditions therefore unless they have a warrant to search you for specific items based on probable cause they cannot search you by your God given Constitutional right. They are ignoring this one big time also.

Ravenstar

[cruiserman]

By this logic, anyone should be allowed to bring a gun on to an airplane, or into a court hearing. No more metal detectors!

Why not? My right to self defense should not end at the courthouse or the airport.

[harpseal]

By this logic, anyone should be allowed to bring a gun on to an airplane, or into a court hearing. No more metal detectors!

In the days when such was totally legal there were very few untoward incidents. The piots who carried mail on their planes were required to be armed and to resist any hijacking. That changed in the 1960's when the first law disarming mail transporters was passed. Hijackings to Cuba with a gun or a knife became common. Metal detectors were installed in airports.

Perhaps some people feel this way, but I think most people recognize some limits. It's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Yes, you have free speech, but it is possible to push it too far.

I for one think that rsponsible people carrying firearms is not a problem anywhere. Irresponsible people will pay no attention and smuggle weapons past any security screening. On September 11, 2001 we saw the results of disarmed victims on aircraft. Since you think that disarming people protects them perhaps you can explain to me why September 11, 2001 was a good thing.

[Mr. Lucky]

When it was lawful to carry firearms on commercial aircraft (which wasn't all that long ago), there were no hijackings.

As a young attorney, I carried a concealed weapon several times during court proceedings.

Freedom was OK then; it would be OK now.

[harpseal]

Most people feeling some way is not a justification for implementing policy. At one time most people felt that disease was caused by evil spirits fortunately or unfortunately we have no come to the understanding that many diseases are caused by microorganisms and genetics.

Think don't just feel.

[Betty Jane]

My father became a mailman at 17. Whenever he picked up the registered mail he was issued a gun to carry to protect the mail. This was in the early 50's. Imagine the government doing that today. The only time they give a kid a gun now is in the military. Hey, is that even legal antmore?

[an amused spectator]

By this logic, anyone should be allowed to bring a gun on to an airplane, or into a court hearing. No more metal detectors!

Yeah, that's right - the government only allows criminals to carry guns into court hearings. Or did you not read about this? ;-)

[Mr. Mojo]

Frist receives a 'D' rating from Gun Owners of America

[MissTargets]

The gun bill will return again in January, likely passing the House by March.

This will be the revised Senate version, I presume. I've got mixed feelings, on this one. Pass it, and try and get some of the restrictions off later? I doubt it. It's taken years to get this far.

[wcbtinman]

Too bad that some of the passengers on the WTC flights didn't have a handgun. We might not have suffered a small dent in the population count.

You go into places all of the time and sit near people who have concealed and non-concealed firearms. Just because they are law enforcement makes them no better or safer than either of us.

Grow a pair.