| Q. | Is this latest trajedy at Virgina Tech enough to finally get rid of Victim Disarmament laws? | Related Search:
Law & Ethics | | | First Columbine, then 9-11, now this? When will we learn that Victim Disarmament leads to tragedies?
| | A. | It should be. Unfortunately, history suggests it will result in MORE victim disarmament laws. Too many people have bought the LIE that laws prevent crime. Laws only provide for punishment of crimes. Fear of victims shooting back is the only thing that prevents criminals from using guns. | | | |
| Q. | LIBERALS And Victim Disarmament? | Related Search:
Politics | | | With Brady laws, background checks and now the new veterans bill that is being pushed by liberals.
Honest, law abiding citizens, who work hard, do no harm and pay their taxes will be forbidden to own and use guns even for non-violent sporting purposes.
Veterans, especially those who seeked counselling.
Adults who were previously diagnozed ADHD when they were younger.
Etc.
Now, non-violent, non-dangerous people will not be allowed to buys guns because of this.
Has this gone too far ?
| | A. | You should buy guns and bury them under earth somewhere they will never find it. One day, this country will make the mistake of electing a liberal which will then proceed to enact an all out ban, that day you will be happy you hid something for you if they come to get you.
Buy a gun each month, it's the law. | | | |
| Q. | What legitimate defense purpose does the government military have? | Related Search:
Military | | | How exactly is a government military superior at protecting a country than a voluntary guerrila force or militia? I am willing to concede that a government military is far better at invading other countries and killing innocent people, but how exactly is a government military better at its supposed purpose of protecting a country against attacks from foreign governments than the alternatives that naturally occur in a free market situation (provided that the government doesn't pass any victim disarmament laws)?
Why not follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson and abolish the government military and replace it with a voluntary militia? Why not spend some tax dollars to achieve a goal of universal gun ownership in order to better protect America?
| | A. | i hate to inform you of this very simple fact but you do not win wars on your soil.. you stalemate at best...
you win wars by going into the enemies territory and taking their land away from them...
but to answer your specific question lets start with the Somalia pirates... have you noticed they do NOT take ships that have American registries?!
the reason for this is that America has a very VERY VVVEERRRYYY nasty navy... when the pirates go out and see an American vessel they leave it alone....same for most British ships.. they instead pick on ships of countries that do not have a navy....
hmmm now lets equate that same concept to armies...
a volunteer army would fight a modern trained and equipped military almost as incompetently as Iraqi army fought the US.... we took out the strongest military in the Mideast so fast that the president COULD have done it in the time he is allowed to deploy armies without congress's approval...
if you were to abandon the military and have none at all.. your freedom would be had at the will and behest of others that do not want you to be free...
when Thomas Jefferson spoke against an organized army constantly under the control of the government it was inconceivable that the atlantic could be crossed in a matter of hours... it would have taken weeks to land an invasion force.. and a campaign took years to arrange... now the US could be completely conquered in a matter of weeks if our shores were left unguarded.
| | | |
| Q. | How does disarming schools stop shootings, when all school shootings already happen in Gun Free Zones? | Related Search:
Politics | | | Will somebody please explain to me how law-abiding teachers and students are safer when no firearm can be legally present on school grounds (until after the police are called, after someone is already shot, of course)?
Think from the point of view of the mad gunmen. If you were a psycho bent on shooting up a school, would you be more likely to try it in a totally unarmed school where your victims could not resist, or a school where you didn't know who might or might not have the same firepower as you?
I'm seriously trying to understand what is safer about victim disarmament. Do people really believe it, or is it just an image thing?
Of course, by Gun Free Zone, I mean a LEGALLY defined Gun-Free-Zone.
LeoGirl: of COURSE they should be volunteers; they should have all necessary valid permits, but I disagree about them being kept in desks. Ought never to leave a teacher's person.
And high school students of legal carrying age (16 in MT w/o adult) definitely shouldn't be kept from having their guns in their cars, like they always could until Columbine.
Candid: Schools were never statutorily armed nor disarmed before 1990. After 1990, they were disarmed, and school shootings became epidemic.
Hellvis: I'm glad we agree (although you were sarcastic about it) that people use guns to kill people, and that guns don't just jump out and start shooting on their own.
Consider Pearl High School in Mississippi.
There, a vice-principal pointed his gun at a psycho who had just slit his mother's throat and started to shoot up his school.
Even the psycho knew that his massacre was OVER!
| | A. | Gun Free School Zones are retarded. That only means that law-abiding teachers and students will have no firearms to defend themselves with | | | |
| Q. | How can Hoplophobic people overcome their anti-gun mentality? | Related Search:
Politics | | | -"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you"
-"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces"
-"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns"
-"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so angry when gun owners simply point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
[Link] 
| | A. | take them out of their comfort zone, and put them into a high crime area. Preferably one surrounded with sex offenders.
Tell them the truth about what just happened down the street to the family, being terrorized by one of those sex offenders. Tell them the truth that nearly every female in that area has been sexually assaulted and/or raped and that in order to be safe from rape they have to try to call the police and hope to god that one of the 12 policeman they have working can get there before the offender gets your door broken down and rapes them and their children. I know that I wouldn't be standing there waiting for the police while sombody raped my child. If I couldn't get a gun, I guess I'd have to risk more to stop it. You have to get a whole lot closer to stab somebody than you do to shoot them. | | | |
| Q. | Is sportswriter Peter King aware that Fort Hood was a "gun-free" zone? | Related Search:
Politics | | | [Link]
Yet again, a proponent of victim disarmament uses the failure of victim disarmament to argue for even more victim disarmament.
Whenever alot of people get shot in some "gun-free" zone, you can always be sure that the gun-grabbers will attempt to utilize it for their ends.
| | A. | I'm not sure.. | | | |
|
|
