Penn wrote:Here's a FoxNews article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html
Here's a funny quote:
"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
When someone pulls out a gun and starts firing in a crowded environment, it's more likely that additional victims will be harmed, Hamm said.
"Let's be grateful that those holsters are empty," he said.
What a typical response of someone who really realizes the true purpose of the 'movement' yet still tries to degrade it with such an idiotic reply.
He goes on to say 'someone' instead of referring to a college student. Then he states 'crowded environment' instead of implying on a college campus. While the entire time he is just stating the obvious for any situation. Having a room full of people in a building on fire - the number of injuries and/or deaths will increase. Having a school bus full of children tip over - same outcome.
Looking past the pointless reply by Mr. Hamm - I seriously hope another Virginia Tech attack doesn't occur so he doesn't have to eat his ending statement:
"Let's be grateful that those holsters are empty"
What he should be stating other than the obvious is suggesting another real-time solution to allow the student immediate means to defend himself.
I asked my question without mentioning the word gun. Does anyone think he can answer without mentioning or referring to a gun also? There are several ways to inflict harm - but not many to allow for immediate personal protection.
The whole purpose isn't to allow guns so that we may stop a shooting. The purpose to is allow personal protection to stop anything whether its a carjacking, mugging, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and so on. The gun is there, as a tool, for me to protect myself from anything that will inflict harm to me. PERIOD.
He comes off like there are campuses full of cowboys who want to be the hero to take down the next school shooter. If one day, that situation again rises - I would have no problem with my students being armed. If I
have to trust to them today when guns are banned then why can't I trust them tomorrow when guns are allowed - law allowing. What
really changed? I don't know if anyone of the 400 sitting before me, sometimes with my back to them, are carrying a loaded weapon. Are they planning an attack or are they prepared for the worse?
The gun is for my personal protection. It is the tool and my right to bear. Its needs no explanation or no justification.
The Declaration of Independence states that I am 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property (Happiness). The Constitution allows me 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.' Do the intentions of those two documents not overlap in accomplishing the same goal of protecting the people?
So I am 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property (Happiness).', but I can't use those rights and protect myself 24/7 regardless of the type of property I am on?
Doesn't that seem to be allowing me an 'INALIENABLE RIGHT' but with a limitation to follow which contradicts the UNALIENABLE? Where is the logic?
BOTTOM LINE: We have rights, actually unalienable rights, to
life (me, myself, I),
liberty (which is defined as "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions"), and
the pursuit of property/happiness (kind of need to be alive and well for that to continue).
Those rights were given to the people and not to be prohibited. Who gets to chose what type of tool, whether it be a gun, saber, battle axe, or taser, that I want to use to protect myself and my rights?