CheekyGeek wrote:
I'm non-political, but my wife teaches English at a university and I
find myself asking myself, would I feel BETTER about her safety if (in
the world of 2010) I could be sure that EVERY student in her class,
every coworker in her department, every person on the street, was
exercising their "constitutional privilege" of carrying a firearm at
all times? I find the answer is "no" and it becomes an ever stronger
"no" for each armed human in her vicinity, irregardless of their
psychological profile.
Darren Addy
Kearney, NE
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Scott Loveless <[email protected]> wrote:
They might have been. But the people she shot and killed were denied
even the opportunity to protect themselves. There was no one in that
room legally allowed to have a gun. The campus prohibits it, and the
law in Alabama does not prohibit the school from doing so.
Have you ever noticed that when someone goes on a shooting spree they
almost always pick targets that _can't_ shoot back? The Brady Bunch
is dead wrong and people got killed because a criminal took advantage
of idiotic "gun control" policy.
I'll leave you with this:
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an
unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear
arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of
constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34
Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Sitting on this little island on the east side of the Atlantic where
hand guns and semi-automatic weapons are completely banned (unless you
are in the military or police) and you can only own a target rifle or
shotgun if you can prove it is for a legitimate purpose, I find the
concept of a constitutional right to carry a device whose sole purpose
is to kill seem completely bonkers. The answer is a blanket ban, not a
constitutional right :-)
Drew. (still ducking)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
