|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2009, 08:56 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
More from James Madison University
More letters and such from the James Madison University student paper "The Breeze".
Letter: In Defense of Gun Rights Week Quote:
|
|
February 26, 2009, 08:58 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
And the other side "fires" back
Firing Back
Quote:
|
|
February 26, 2009, 12:03 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,552
|
Whitten Maher's response was well written, I will say that.
Quote:
Far better, I gather, to ignore or downplay violent crime on campus (is there crime on college campuses? ) and to depend on someone else with a gun and a badge to save ones studious derriere, eh? But, I preach to the choir and they already know that sermon, chapter and verse.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address |
|
February 26, 2009, 12:06 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Baba Louie,
I'd rather reverse the argument. He says Quote:
|
|
February 26, 2009, 04:01 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address |
|
February 28, 2009, 02:19 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
|
I'd have no objection to a gun prohibition on any campus that actually prohibited all guns on campus; and did not just prohibit the guns of the law-abiding. However, that would require a real commitment to campus security; not just lip service to it. In other words, entrance and egress to campus and buildings would have to be controlled by armed guards and entrance would have to be through metal detectors; Security would have to be as tight as it is at airports and courthouses. Otherwise while terrorists and madmen will be able to bring guns onto the campus; the law-abiding will obey the ban and won't. We saw the miserable result of this kind of totally inadequate "gun prohibition" on the campus of Virginia Tech. It is clear that it succeeded only in disarming the innocent and the law-abiding. In fact,Tech's so-called gun prohibition on campus made the innocent and law-abiding students who it disarmed (ie., the sheep) helpless prey of a wolf (actually a madman) dressed in sheep's (students) clothing. I am not a lawyer, and nothing herein should be considered a legal opinion; it is just one man's opinion, but it seems to me that when a school or a business, or a state government takes it upon itself to legally bar a person from excercising his/her 2nd Admendment rights, then a steep liability should be borne by that entity for any harm that befalls that person as a result. My guess is that after Virginia Tech realized it's "gun prohibition" had actually allowed the one dangerous person on campus to be armed, and had turned the law abiding community into his helpless prey, the school (or possibly the state of Virginia since Virginia Tech is a state supported institution) threatened to claim "soverign immunity" because almost all of the victims families settled pretty quickly, and the announced settlements that I've read seem outrageously low.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|