maybe they should have those undercover cops or whatever ya know? like they go to school and all with the students and stuff..or myabe the principal could carry a gun or atleast a knife of some sort

 

It took more than a century just to get "the strap" out of the hands of principals. Now you wanna give them guns and knives?

 

good point lol

but hey ..it saves some lives..i tihnk

 

This is so true it's actually sad. Spend some time in Washington and you'd be absolutely amazed how things are really done. It's all about who has the fattest wallet. It has nothing to do with what's good "for the people". I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see what has happened to this great country of theirs.

 

You know I have been reading this post from start to finish and I think this is one of the only responses that I like! When you disarm with gun control you put the power into the hands of the criminal. In every state that enacted a concealed carry weapon permit the violent crime rate dropped. Not because the good guys were shooting it up like the old west, but because the criminals were thinking twice about committing a crime. All this talk about gun control is all because of the media and the crazy spin that you hear everytime somthing happens. Have you ever noticed that if someone gets stabbed or beat to death the local news shows a picture of a gun. If you took all the guns away and melted them down the criminals and crazy people like this guy would just find another means of getting their way. It is time that we as a society come to terms and agree that there IS evil in the world and you can do little to deter these people the best you can do is protect yourself and those that you love any way you can. My prayers go out to the people who lost their lives in this tragety and their families. I pray for peace and understanding to come to those who survived. God be with you all.

 

Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When a woman approached Benjamin Franklin following the concluding session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the fall of 1787 and asked what sort of government the delegates had come up with, Franklin famously replied: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." In Franklin's opinion, the ability of the young nation to "keep the republic" was open to question. Although government has survived the social, economic, and political challenges confronting it for more than two centuries, the ability of the nation to "keep the republic" while responding logically to policy challenges that are growing increasingly complex is open to question.

The only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute...is your right to believe anything you want.

 

GO HOKIES

 

Made this for my kids to wear at school today...

Our prayers go out to the whole VT family, and hope the healing can start.

 

That might be so, perfection will never be reached but what we have beats the hell out of any other country in the world. No exceptions. It is no coincidence the USA is the favorite country to migrate to which many decide to call their own.

I've yet to visit a country I would trade the USA for.

 

read 1Bullits quote and google up " my country tis of the " and listen to it

 

+1

 

How many other countries in the world have you visited? I've been to several, and I have the same reaction as you when I return to Canada - I feel this is the best place in the world in which to live.



And in third place >>

 

Quite a few. Excluded are the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and any former or present Communist nation with one exception.

 

there is nothing wrong with national or " home " pride .. home pride comes first with me .. if my neighbor attacked me i would defend myself to the death ... if some outsider were to attack my neighbor i would help him defend himself to the death ... if some other small town were to attack my small town .. i would defend my town ... if tenn were to attack alabama .. i would defend alabama... if the north were to invade the south " again '".. i would defend the south .. if any country were to attack my country .. i dont know where this is headed .. just know there`s no place like home

 

You forgot "if aliens invade Earth..."

 

All I know is that I'm happy to live where I do.

 

They don`t call it Beautiful BC for nothing!

 

that is indeed a beatiful place .. move it all down to alabama please ..

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood_North GT

Interesting perspective, though historically, not entirely accurate

I'll give you this Hollywood, it never gets dull with you around. I'll start from the top.

First, my take on what the founders thought of the second amendment is right on the money. There is an endless sea of qoutes made by the very men who brought those amendments into being which make it very clear what they thought of them. I don't feel a need to post a couple dozen here because they are widely published and easily found if you choose to do so.

You might also note that it is essentially impossible to find a qoute from any of them which would contradict what I said. And for that matter, you wont find a Supreme Court ruling which paints the second in a different light until roughly one hundred years after the adoption of the Constitution. Although I don't know why we have to go to such extreme measures in any event since the second amendment itself is very clear on the issue with only those intent on muddling the original intent creating a problem.

In fact, that brings up a problem which I have with the current 'liberal' agenda. 9I hate to call leftists liberals since they really aren't) Leftists apologists, and a slew of revisionist historians who I can only assume are leftists as well, are absolutely H*&%-bent on convincing the world that what they believe the second amendment should mean is in fact, exactly what the founders meant when they penned it. This is, of course, despite the fact that there is effectively no evidence to support that notion.

In all sincerity why can't they just say that they disagree with what those men thought?....I would hold a far greater measure of respect for them if they did. My suspicion is that they believe those men are generally seen as more intelligent/wiser than are they (now there I a surprise), and that the public would scoff at any agenda that said 'this is what Washington, Henry, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin all thought....but they were wrong'. To be fair they are probably right about that, but it doesn't excuse their efforts to effectively rewrite history in an attempt to overcome their inadequacies.

As for the terrible erosion of rights after 9/11.....you are kidding right? Your statement inherently brings about a comparison to the Clinton era, which brings about some interesting comparisons to be sure. Lets start with....Ruby Ridge perhaps? Before we cross this well-worn bridge let me start out by saying...yep, complete nut job and a racist jerk on top of it. Of course, he is still an American either way and enjoys all the same rights I do, especially as a veteran. Just for giggles shall we take a look at what the Clinton era's vision of Federal law enforcement, by way of the BATF, did to this fella according to a court of law and a Dept of Justice inquiry no less.

Entrapped a man with no record of firearms violations into manufacturing a sawed off shotgun. Even worse they only managed to do so after repeated attempts.

The Dept of Justice concluded that the BATF showed up with the intent of killing the 'suspect' on sight without an attempt to take him into custody.

Made no apparent announcement that they were law enforcement officers at any time, which would fit into the DOJ's findings that concluded the BATF essentially came to execute the man on his property.

Shot the 'suspects' son in the back, again with no announcement that they they were law enforcement officers.

Attempted to supress evidence which the BATF stated in an interal memo might indicate that their 'suspect' was innocent.

I could go on about this, WACO, and several other lesser known domestic law enforcement actions but I don't see the need to do so. And before you are tempted to wave the conspiracy theory flag remeber that this is what the DOJ oand a courth of law had to say on this matter. I'd like to believe these were unfortunate mishaps, but these were too involved, too well planned, and to deeply political to simply be 'one of those things' that happens. That said, in light of the above I'll take the Bush era thank you very much. Yeah, most of the better publicized events involved people totally of their nut, but that doesn't justify what was done to them and only makes me wonder who would have been next after they finished going through the nut jobs.

And who said anything about overthrowing the govt. I like my govt just fine thank you. And even though there are parts of the Patriot Act I would like to see fade into obscurity again, it beats having Federal officers unleashed on any American who doesn't uphold the status quo.

My vote, address the people who create the problem instead of trying to turn the govt into my second mother.

I don't necessarily disagree, but this depends on your defintion of 'easily accessed'. And I'll bet our defintions aren't the same.

I don't disagree actually, I just like to nip the stats argument in the bud since so many anti-gun rights folks like to go to this particular 'well' so to speak.

I think common sense would actually lead us to deal with the problem itself, which is the people who do these things. Unforunately, common sense is in short supply as shown by the fact that the average murderer only does about ten to fifteen years. (closer to ten) You would arguably get more time for robbing a bank than for murder in the second. If we as a society can't figure out how broken the system that allows that is then I boldly suggest you are wasting your time by attempting, most likely without success, to remove something as simple as a tool (and that is what a gun is) from a killers hands.

Ironically, I feel the same way about people so willing to surrender rights they deem unnecessary. Of course, since you are a Canadian this isn't really the case, and if gun control works for you folks and you like it go on with your bad selves. But, and I think I speak for a great many Americans, particularly those from the south, I'll keep my guns thank you very much.

 

"Second mother," huh?

It's interesting the ways in which people rationalize gun ownership as an "essential right"; that if the government were to take away one's right to carry a deadly weapon around in public, it would somehow greatly diminish one's personal safety and be an affront to one's dignity. Yet those same people apparently have no trouble when their rights are trampled on by the Patriot Act...or illegal wiretaps. Where is the screaming indignation then, I wonder? "Take away any right you want, just don't take away our guns," huh?

Ironically, I'm guessing you'll be running to "mother" if - god forbid - al Quada ever sets off a nuke on American soil.

You implied it, when you made the following statement >> People in American possess arms because it prevents a government from getting too many ideas about walking all over the populace. The very fact that so many in our government would like to take that right away only reaffirms the continuing need for it.

Which is interesting, given your other statement above >> I like my govt just fine thank you.

So which is it? Either you like your government, or you believe it to be overbearing, "walking all over you," and ready to take away your rights.

Don't thank me. I'm just glad I don't live in a city where any nutwhack on the street might be "carrying," and prepared to pop me if he thinks I'm looking at him funny.

We're not allowed to "pack heat" here, and we have less instances of gun crimes per capita. Adding more guns to the equation doesn't make anyone safer - that just flies in the face of common sense. Violence begets violence.

Owning a weapon in your own home...or transporting it to a firing range for target shooting seem fine to me. But no private citizen should be allowed to walk around in public with a concealed handgun on their person. Again, why do you need to be doing that? Being licensed to drive a car is a priviledge. Why should carrying around a deadly weapon in public be a "right"?