From the article:
THE NATIONAL Rifle Association is a lobbying colossus in this country, and it doesn't like to lose a political battle. Fortunately, the NRA is losing one that makes you scratch your head and ask yourself, "what were they thinking?"
For any of you familiar with what happens in Israel when some idiot thinks shooting up schools is a good idea, and then does it, the casualties are always much lower, and the dirtbag gets slain in the process, rather than run out of ammo and turn his own gun against himself.
It has less to do with what they are thinking, and everything to do with what has been proved to them.
What they were thinking is this: The gun lobby believes America's college campuses are dangerous places for your children to be and wants the states to enact laws that would forbid any attempts to keep guns away from university classrooms, research labs, office buildings, arenas, dining halls, and dormitories.
Again, it isn't what we think; it's what has been proven to us. The time that lapses between the first shot made by a mass murderer, and when someone with a gun intercedes and puts a stop to it is directly related to how many die. That should be a self-evident truth, right there. We need the possibility of armed resistance to be as high as possible.
Yes, you read that right. The NRA wants to force the people who run our colleges and universities to allow guns on campus, a place most parents hope is a safe haven for their kids while they pursue an education. No gun left behind, you might say.
Enter the world of reality, parents can [deleted -- TR]
Reality is that they are victim disarmament zones. Logic dictates that a criminal is just that because he does not obey laws. They won't obey "no guns" zones when they are intent on murder; that is just the way it is.
That's the bad news. Here's the good news: the NRA is getting shot down in state after state. So far in 2008, guns-on-campus bills have failed to gain any traction in 15 states where they have been introduced. It's truly an honor roll - my own little Dean's List, if you will - so let's list them: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. That's 15 tries and 15 misses.
Why celebrate? This only means the possibility of school zone murders increases, and in this case, the instances increase dramatically.
Rather than follow what we think, we should follow what has been proven to us, and look toward Israel or Switzerland, neither of which have these issues with the same tragic results as the US does.
What must be especially upsetting to the NRA is the defection of states and legislators the organization thought it had in its deep pockets. When guns-on-campus legislation was pushed to a vote in South Dakota, the state Senate rejected the bill with the help of "no" votes from six A-rated NRA senators. Same story in Indiana. The legislation lost by a vote in the Senate because 10 senators endorsed by the NRA went the other way and rejected the idea. Only one state, Utah, has ever passed such a law, which on some level doesn't surprise me.
Utah had something demonstrated to them: armed encounter is met wit harmed resistance. They got the message.
Guns-on-campus has been an NRA agenda item for a long time but the organization cranked up its lobbying effort after the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, when a mentally disturbed student opened fire in a classroom building and killed 32 students and faculty members, including a professor with Toledo connections.
So, why did the "no guns" signs not work?? I doubt that animal couldn't read; quite the contrary. Predators like their prey as weak as they can be.
I wish I could tell you that Ohio and Michigan have joined with all those other states in aggressively repudiating the idea of arming our college campuses, but the fact is that only two states still have pending legislation that could do just that, and their names are Ohio and Michigan. The good news is that neither legislature is in a hurry to act. If that's repudiation, I'll take it.
It will be interesting to see if either state has the interests of the innocent in its hearts....
As you might expect, law enforcement officials charged with keeping the peace on our college campuses don't like turning them into armed camps either. Gene Ferrara, chief of police at the University of Cincinnati, had this to say to CNN not long ago: "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying. My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."
Why do we care what our public servants think?? They are supposed to do a job, not exceed their authority and tell us what to do.
Gun violence anywhere is horrifying. Do we really want to prevent our universities from banning firearms from their campus communities? Like it or not, many college students drink. Often to excess. Do we want to put a beer in every hand and a gun in every pocket? Should sports fans be permitted to bring guns into a football stadium?
It is entirely possible that the "get drunk and party" crowd is entirely different from the "responsible for their own safety" crowd. That's what the facts tell us. When the facts are in contradiction to your opinion, that means it is wrong. If you know that, and by now, there is no possible way you could not know it, then you are lying.
The answers seem so obvious.
Apparently not, if you would keep printing deceitful lies in the ace o the truth.
Even if only 21-year-olds were initially able to carry weapons on campus, pressure would mount to lower the age to 18. It just seems to me to be someplace we don't want to go.
This is an inadvertent addmission from this guy stating tat if you are not 21, you are incompetent to secure your own family, protect yourself in public, and it reeks of prejudice. I expect that from the standard rank and file liberal trash bag, though.
The Supreme Court of the land agrees. Though the court narrowly ruled late last month that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a personal right and not a provisional right linked to preserving public safety, the court also made clear that it was not messing with long-standing laws prohibiting firearms in what it called "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.
Well, our good friend Alan Gura did not waste any time conceding this idea, but that doesn't mean anything. Let me demonstrate how it is wrong in and of itself. Take notes, Alan; you might make a better case for yourself, next time...
In order for a building to be "public", means it is funded entirely by tax revenue. That revenue comes from us. In other words, and in no uncertain terms WE paid for that. The politicians did not. The police did not. In fact, both of them are employed by us. Since WE paid for it, that means that ownership belongs in part to every tax payer. That is what defines something that is public.
No one has the authority to tell any citizen, to which ownership rightly belongs, that they cannot bear arms inside any "public" building. All they have is unjust force backing themselves up, the exact same way they do when enforcing any malum prohibitum law. No one granted the servants the right to rule over the true masters.
Every building at a public university is a government building.
Do your homework before you begin conceding your point. If it is a government building, as you say, then it belongs to us. Nothing can truly belong to the gov't. Those of us who actually attend a certain college or university make an even greater argument to claim of ownership, since, on top of taxes, we pay tuition, also; already, your argument is failing under lawful scrutiny.
College students themselves think guns on campus are a bad idea.
Who gives a damn?? If they don't want to rely on themselves for their own defense, fine. They still have no right commanding others who would to do otherwise. There was a time when slavery was supported, too. The same is true about women voting rights. I don't see your point, and I don't care if the majority of college students now believed that the world is flat, and is at the center of the universe. I know differently.
Toledoan Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, remembers an appearance before a class of about 150 students at the University of Cincinnati. She asked their opinion about allowing students to carry guns. All but "a handful" were opposed, she said.
Am I understanding this right?? All but a handful of students wanted guns on campus?? Earlier, you stated that a majority of college students were opposed. This doesn't sound like it, to me.
What about professors, she asked. This time the response was unanimous: no way. There was nervous laughter but a point was made.
And what point was made, exactly? That college professors are retarded in the Freudian sense of the word, and are the ones instructing others in intellectual institutes??
That's scary, right there.
I know the argument of the other side. When the Virginia Tech shooter opened fire, they contend, another student carrying a gun might have ended the rampage shortly after it began. But would another student have had the presence of mind, the skill, the coolness to prevent (animal's name omitted due to lack of relevance)from gunning down so many classmates? Perhaps. It's also possible a shootout would have made the carnage worse.
NOPE!!! But thanks for playing!!!
The worst possible case scenario is that the armed mass murderer will run out of ammunition and shoot himself. If this happens, enough time has passed to allow this animal the opportunity to shoot at a maximum number of targets, and then end his own pathetic existence, so as to escape consequences. Anyone interceding at any point in between will change how thisshooting goes, the exact same way Israeli intervention makes school shooting exceptionally rare in their country. No one is stupid enough to try it, there.
What happened at Virginia Tech remains extremely rare;
Statistics are a cold comfort when you learn that you are the rare exception.
it could occur more frequently if guns abound.
It would likely be thwarted well in advance, also, if veryone had them, and not just the cowardly predators who insist on extremely soft targets.
(animal's name omitted due to lack of relevance) had already been judged in court as mentally "defective," yet he was able to purchase the two handguns he used in his deadly assault. It seems to me that's a greater problem in Virginia than rules against guns on campus.
Actually, the only real problem here was than none of the good guys were armed, and they were sitting ducks.
Trying to interject philosophy where logic reigns supreme is as idiotic as asking a doctor to overhaul a jet engine, rather than an aircraft mechanic. Logic always trumps philosophy!!!
I'm Glock and Dagger and I approved this message.
"If it deprives just one citizen of their God-given rights, it's not worth it."
FOOTOS... the Fresh Fighter