On 2/19/10, CheekyGeek <[email protected]> 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.
Had your wife been in that room in Alabama, what would you have given for just one of the victims to have been armed and willing to use it for defense? Are you seriously telling me that you can live with the deaths of unarmed innocents simply so you can "feel BETTER"? As to "constitutional privilege", the first two amendments to the US Constitution are recognized, by the US Supreme Court on multiple occasions, as a limit on the federal government. In other words, those rights existed before the formation of the United States and cannot be taken away. The word "inalienable" is used for a reason. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us those rights, it guarantees them. -- 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.
