Group IM on Gun Control

ReenaZenovka · Joined: 31 Mar 2007 Posts: 3

Last night there was a group IM going on and the discussion went into the topic of gun control. This is a very hot topic apparently. I got very upset and felt insulted by some of the members of our group. I felt like I was cowed and ganged up on by some gun nuts. I got frustrated with them and my words got all flustered, when I tried to digress and move on I was attacked again. Preaching is not debate.

My entire point was that there should be gun free zones, such as schools, government buildings, and sporting events and such (I believe I said arenas). I was told that it is our God given right to carry, and that if I didn't agree to this I didn't understand the importance of the 2nd amendment. I completely disagree to this idea.

I don't believe any idiot should be allowed to pack. Especially teachers. the type of training that would be necessary to train these teachers is not realistic. Weapon handling, unarmed combat techniques, psychological training. It's too much.

What if you had an elderly teacher, a female who was overpowered by a 17 year old strapping male student. Who would be made safer by that?? I don't want my children to attend a school where the teacher is authorized to shoot a student. I am not opposed to security gates and armed gaurds (trainied police) OUTSIDE the school grounds. but not in the classroom.

It was brought up that this is how it's done in Isreal. Well, HELLO, this is not Isreal, and we don't want it to be. We don't HAVE to have guns in our schools. So, we SHOULDN'T.

I don't want to take my family to a football game and have to think I wonder who is carrying a gun??

I should not have to live in fear because some think that God has given them the right to carry a ballistic weapon.

I live in texas I FULLY understand the importance of the right to bear arms, but not in my kid's schools. NO WAY.

Robbrail · Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Northern California

The whole idea of gun free zones is ridiculous. If I were to suggest an area where the 3rd ammendment was not binding, and the government decided it could park troops in that area - to make it fun lets say this area is your house - and you are responsible to feed and comfort them even though it is against the 3rd ammendment but your house just happens to be in one of these no 3rd ammendment zones, I would get laughed at because the idea is so absurd. Yet people think it is all right to make areas where the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply. The sad thing is people actually go along with it, because it is easy to follow than to challenge absurdity. Gun free zones are unconstitutional, until such time as the 2nd ammendment gets replaced by an anit-gun ammendment to the constitution.

Furthermore, if you have a concealed weapons permit, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to be a teacher, preacher, or private citizen and be carrying a gun inside of school grounds, public events, or anywhere else. Yes, there are crazy people who do violent things with guns, but if there were more sane people carry guns, they would be stopped much sooner than they generally are.

Now I am not saying that anyone who has a concealed weapons permit has the right to shoot people they deem to be a danger, but at a certain point it becomes obvious that the only way to end violence is with a violent act, it is what criminals understand and fear.

In short the right to bear arms is a freedom worth fighting to protect, in fact it is worth fighting to expand. Gun laws don't stop criminals and neither do gun safe zones. Gun safe zones just tell criminals that they can go there and have a virtual target practice with victims.
_________________
Anytime you want to hear the latest on the Republican Party of SL goto
http://slrepublicans.blogspot.com/

Ryder Spearmann · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: GFZs

Well, there is no such thing as a Gun Free Zone.... in reality.

All you have to do to make it go away is to bring a gun with you into one... and poof, it is gone.

Imaging making the US a "Terrorist Free Zone". Does the concept make sense? Of course not.

There is a substantial difference between a declaration of one's desired outcome, and the actual means to accomplish it.

Saying "no guns at schools or ..." does not accomplish it.

Besides... guns at a school are not a problem... it is firing them at the innocent, just as 9/11 was not about how bad aircraft are... it is that using them to kill the innocent is wrong.

The desire is right... but the means is empty.

Floyd Merit · Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 30

obviously i think courtrooms should be gun-free, right?

if i own a convention center, i can declare it a "gun free zone", right?

i oppose the feckless, self-congratulatory ceremony of declaring "our schools" "gun-free zones", and i certainly oppose any law to that effect (i.e.: if you own a convention center, you must make it a 'gun-free zone').

but i do believe in the right for persons to allow or disallow whatever they want on property they own to the extent that they are able to enforce it. this includes the state's right with regard to it's property, including courtrooms and, yes, state schools.

the "gun-free zone" policy at virginia tech clearly failed those students who were left defenseless and should be changed. but i don't believe it contravened the second ammendment.

Ryder Spearmann · Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:18 am Post subject:

Certainly any private place can have any gun rules they want. Period. People then can go or not based on those policies.

Any place where the public can freely enter and exit... same thing.

Now, any place where by force of government, persons MUST go, then no. Then the government has responsibility to protect you 100%, for they compel you to go. This includes military, court appearances, etc.

Any place that the government has secured, and can not be entered by the public, then that should be subject to enforcable rules as well. Note that none of the reasoning has anything to do with guns.