Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Amy Bishop’s Shooting Spree May Renew Debate About Guns On Campus

February 18, 2010 by  

Amy Bishop's shooting spree may renew debate about guns on campus Last Friday, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville shot and killed three colleagues, and wounded three others, in a rampage that has reignited the debate about the merit of the laws passed in several states, and pending in many more, that allow guns on America’s campuses.

Amy Bishop, whose history includes a 1986 shooting death of her brother, allegedly opened fire at a department faculty meeting. According to media reports, the Harvard-educated professor had previously expressed resentment over being denied tenure, although nothing suggested she was violent.

Bishop’s history has caused anger among relatives of the shooting victims who have been quoted by the media as asking why the university hired someone with her background.

The accident has also spurred Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus to issue a statement in which it says that "[it] shows once again that an angry individual with access to a deadly handgun can commit mass murder wherever people gather, in workplaces, shopping malls, churches, schools and universities."

The organization’s director Andy Pelosi said that the gun lobby’s push to allow students and faculty to carry weapons on campus in order to fend off similar attacks is a "mistaken wild west fantasy."

"Why does anyone think that untrained students or professors would be better able to stop a rampage shooting than trained security officers?" he asked.

Pelosi called on lawmakers in states with pending ‘guns on campus’ bills to withdraw such legislation.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19617100-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Amy Bishop’s Shooting Spree May Renew Debate About Guns On Campus”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Sean

    “Why does anyone think that untrained students or professors would be better able to stop a rampage shooting than trained security officers?”

    Because the professors were in the room. Where was the trained security guard to stop this attack?

    • Maranatha! Mark

      So Sean advocates a police state, with an armed guard, perhaps behind bullet-proof glass in each class room and office suite on campus, and let’s not forget remotely operated gun turrents every 50 feet down hallways. When you have concealed-carry permitted firearms on campus, it isn’t necessary for everyone to have a firearm to deter crimes, cause just knowing the persons around you could be carrying tends to deter the semi-rational folks from committing a crime. However, when talking about the irrational mind set, then hopefully, with conceal-carry permitted firearms on campus, someone will be respond to the threat and at least slow them down until security or law-enforcement arrives.

      • Ken Wilcox

        We need to be allowed to ahve concealed carry since we cannot have a guard in all locations, and it takes more time for one to arrive at the scene than thet shooting takes. One person with a gun might have limited the shooting to one person, assuming that the one with the gun was not the first to be shot.

      • Joe H.

        Maranatha!
        No, that was not what he said. He said the profs should have been armed as they were in the room!!! He asked where the guards were as they could not be there all the time!

    • SiliconDoc

      Libs don’t quite understand that if anyone might have a gun, the person with the gun ready to do violence is scared to death, and that keeps the “anger issues” in check.
      What libs want is “the perfect world” where the entire society is like the lib state mental institutions where no one is allowed anything metallic and items are strictly controlled, coat hangers are plastic, etc.
      Same way the airlines are now – libs would be happy to see the entire USA under those types of controlled conditions – or at least at every place that is public, and especially at their government funding assistance centers like higher education places.
      Let’s face it – the libs are just fruit loops, and think they can regulate wide open campuses with a dozen blocks of entrance space and multiple building and living clusters – I guess the idea is fence everything in like a cage, then have every person walk through a metal detector for every entry and exit…
      I doubt the libs think even that much, however.
      Frankly, they are just insane, and just like I was told for so long and didn’t quite understand, they have a juvenile utopian mindset that is juxtaposed to actual reality.
      I suppose they are so far removed from respecting the Constitution and God given rights, that they feel whenever they have stolen a wad of tax dollars for their favored special interest (like Universities) or whatever, they can take away *everyone’s* rights in the name of security.
      They whined about Bush and the Patriot Act (that Congress actually passed under considerable and understandable personal fear), but in this case they want their total control, toss out the Second Amendment, totalitarian rule book to apply.
      I suppose ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means just about absolutely nothing to them now.

      • JeffH

        SiliconDoc, well said and I couldn’t agree more. Also, thanks for using the term Lib instead of the new/old term p………..

  • benny

    If anyone else had a weapon perhaps they could have stopped the shooting from escalating. Security guards should have been on call too. But I have to ask: must security guards be present for all faculty meetings to ensure safety when another armed prof would’ve been just as good? What part of “shall not be infringed” do we NOT get??

    • SiliconDoc

      In one sense the libs’ attitude is quite understandable. They tell enormous lies and spin to support their outlandish communistic mindsets and lies on a daily basis, especially in a University setting.
      Take that and add it to the elitist and arrogant and irritating personalities of the “educated liberal professors” that have a fit when a student or some other member of faculty doesn’t buy their marxist lines of crap and disagrees or manuevers for some award or recognition or pay raise or position, and uses cutthroat and staff pet shenanigans to achieve those selfish goals…
      What results is a kind of horrifying fearful personal expectation that if the liberals acted they way they do around fellow citizens who are armed adn able to shut them up in an instant – they might truly be in danger, and therefore need to modify their behavior – instead of getting away the crap all the time.
      Then the lib considers the rage they feel when someone who isn’t a marxist controlled borg libbot opposes them verbally.
      The lib is afraid of their own internal reaction, that is so often out of control, since their personal belief system is twisted and has been trained over the years to use false and ridiculous tactics to survive and gain the upper hand. They fear they might snap.
      So all in all, what the lib wants is a type of “public mental ward”, where all are disarmed except the very few tokens they have as “security” (which they also frankly oppose so very often with their anti-police and anti-authority mindsets that are enhanced by ” oppressed minority” constituency struggles and politcally motivated support.).
      Yes, they need a nation wide public nutward with all the citizens disarmed and tamped down so they can continue to force feed the population their marxist crap.

  • s c

    Let the twisted Peter Pan and Mary Poppins crowd rant, rave, whiz and moan. It is what they do best.
    Americans are not obligated to cater to social engineers and ther freedom-hating agendas. These people will use any issue to get and keep power. Sadly, we have many elected dolts who think they are wise or powerful enough to honor some parts of the Constitution and ignore the rest.
    Could it be that many elected people never learned how to read? If this is the case, then perhaps they should see to it that public education is more than an easy way to waste money, time and resources.
    Honoring the Second Amendment is an obligation. Pleasing politicians and their camp-followers is a waste of time, money and lives.

    • AnhydrousBob

      Well said – although finding the part of the constitution they “honored” would be a difficult task.

      • http://aol.com Pathfinder

        Although abused might be a better term than honored, the interstate commerce clause (Art 1 sec 8 third power listed). This has been the excuse for many power grabs by the federal government, especially since the days of FDR. However plenty of R’s are guilty of this innovation as well. The other is the so called “elastic clause” (Art 1 sec 8 last paragraph) and the issue of “implied powers”. A through reading of the federalist papers, especially # 33, will disabuse most people of such idiotic notions. THERE ARE NO IMPLIED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION !! The last paragraph of article one section eight is a redundancy, nohing more. At least THAT is what is asserted in the federalist papers.

    • Joe H.

      S C,
      Let one waco gun down people and you will hear about it for years, but let one person stop a crime because they were armed, and if you are lucky it makes the nightly news!!!

      • http://aol.com Pathfinder

        I agree. This is like reporting only the deaths from allergic reactions to medicine while ignoring the lives saved. (Although I will admit that the percentages are better in the medicine case; but the statement, “More guns, less crime” IS accurate.)

      • eyeswideopen

        JoeH, do you have the site that shows where the citizens who have been carrying have stopped a crime? Just wondering what the percentages were.

        • JeffH
        • JeffH

          This is especially for you

          The Modesto Bee, Modesto, Calif. 02/09/10
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 2/12/2010
          A woman in Modesto, Calif. arrived home to find a burglar inside the residence. The homeowner armed herself with a gun and fired at the criminal, causing him to flee. Police note that there was no indication that the intruder was wounded.

          The Merced Sun-Star, Merced, Calif. 01/07/10
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 1/11/2010
          An armed robber entered the Food Center store in Merced, Calif. and demanded money from one of the clerks. An employee located in a different part of the store noticed the robbery, retrieved his own handgun and fired at the criminal. The robber was not hit by the gunfire, but fled the scene.

          KCRA, Sacramento, Calif. 12/28/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 12/30/2009
          81-year-old Korean War veteran Howard Buckner was lured to the front door of his home in Sacramento, Calif., by two criminals claiming that their car had broken down. As Buckner went to retrieve his phone to help the men, the robbers drew a gun, turned out the lights and ordered Buckner to find his wallet. The robbers forced Buckner around the house to look for his wallet, while one of the criminals threatened to pistol-whip him. The robbers and Buckner eventually made it to the bedroom, where Buckner was able to retrieve his bolt-action rifle and fire at the criminals. After Buckner opened fire the robbers immediately fled the scene.

          KFSN, Fresno, Calif. 11/30/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2009
          Two men, one armed with a gun, entered the U-Save Liquor Store in Fresno, Calif. and demanded money from the clerk. The clerk instead retrieved a gun and fired at the criminals, killing one. The owner of the liquor store is of Indian descent. Many in the local Indian community have recently shown concern and even met to discuss what they believe is a rash of crime targeted at them due to their heritage.

          KGTV, San Diego, Calif. 09/15/09, SDNN, San Diego, Calif. 09/15/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 9/16/2009
          A criminal armed with a handgun lured an apartment resident in San Diego, Calif. to the door by knocking, then forced his way inside. The resident retrieved a shotgun and fired at the intruder, striking him and causing him to flee. The criminal was found by police just outside apartment and was transported to a local hospital, where he died.

          The Associated Press, Sacramento, Calif. 09/01/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2009
          Three men confronted and attacked a resident outside of his apartment in Sacramento, Calif. When the resident retreated inside the apartment, the three criminals followed him in and continued the attack. The resident was able to retrieve a handgun from the apartment and fire at his attackers, killing two and wounding the third. Police did not arrest the resident, after hearing from witnesses who confirmed that he was attacked. The wounded criminal was brought to a local hospital, where he is expected to recover.

          The Los Angeles Times, Las Angeles, Calif. 07/04/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 7/7/2009
          Three armed men entered a barber shop in Compton, Calif. with the intent to rob the owner. Two of the barbers were armed, and they fired, striking two of the criminals. One died at the scene, while the injured survivor and the third robber fled.

          The Desert Dispatch, Barstow, Calif. 06/15/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 6/16/2009
          A group of three robbers attacked a man in his home in Barstow, Calif. During the attack, the homeowner retrieved his handgun and fired at the criminals, killing one and causing the others to flee. Police were unable to immediately locate the criminals who fled the scene.

          The Press-Telegram Long Beach, Calif. 06/09/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 6/10/2009
          A man dressed in a white three-piece suit entered Long Beach Pawn and Jewelry in Long Beach, Calif. and began looking at the jewelry counter, with the help of a store employee. The man in the suit then signaled to two men outside the shop who rushed in and blocked the exit. The man in the white suit drew a gun and ordered everyone to the floor. An armed employee confronted the group of criminals, at which point the armed criminal shot the employee in the cheek. The employee returned fire, striking one of the robbers in the leg and causing them all to flee. The armed employee was taken to a local medical facility where he is expected to survive. Police were unable to immediately locate the three robbery suspects. A witness inside the pawn shop was happy to have an armed employee present at the scene, stating, “I hate to think what would have happened if he didn’t have his gun…It probably would have turned into a take-over.” The witness also questioned the criminal’s choice of target, stating, “I mean, who’s stupid enough to try and rob a pawn shop? They have tons of security, it’s covered in cameras, who doesn’t know that?”

          KSBY, Santa Maria, Calif. 03/13/09
          State: CA
          American Rifleman Issue: 3/16/2009
          Around 12:30 a.m. drunk driver Nicole Galvez, drove into homeowner Chris Saletta’s backyard in Los Osos, Calif. Galvez drove through a fence, a trampoline and hit a backyard well. Galvez then began driving towards Saletta’s children’s bedroom. Saletta retrieved his rifle and fired into the car, striking Galvez in the arm, ending the drunken rampage. Galvez was treated in a local hospital and arrested for driving under the influence. An investigation of the shooting by Sheriff’s deputies found Saletta acted lawfully since he feared for his family’s safety.

          • JeffH

            Now that both of your feet are back in your mouth, do I need to provide any more examples of real life citizens protecting themselves and others!

          • Joe H.

            JeffH,
            Both of her eyes are closed now! with BOTH feet in her mouth, it has forced both her eyes closed.
            Her mouth is noticibly more quiet, also!!!! a big thanks for the back-up!!!!

          • JeffH

            JoeH, I know you don’t need back up, but anytime I can slam that hack I’ll do it….Stupid is as Stupid does…my pleasure.

          • JeffH

            I might add that these incidents were from the heavily gun controlled state of California. If I had put Texas, Arizona or any less liberal state there would have been even more grizzly accounts.

  • http://yahoo.com Jack from Seadrift

    Bad “Law’s” need not be Followed! They need there “owner’s” RE-Moved! For the Good of the (WE THE PEOPLE)! People that carry firearm’s are Freemen! In there home’s, at work, at “SCHOOL”! Free is FREE! Carry your firearm, or be carryed by your Friend’s later! WE carry, NOT to kill, but to STAY ALIVE!

    • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

      Jack, Sea Drift? Very nice place to live. didn’t know there was conservative bone allowed in anyone’s body there. I used to live in Stinson Beach and had the same problem there. [Apologies to those offended by this rare personal expression. Get over it.]

    • http://aol.com Pathfinder

      Unfortunately, tyrannical governments insure that these free people do not remain free for long. Soon the weapons are confiscated and the citizens made prisoners in jail for violating “gun control laws.”

      When will we wake up and realize that these are NOT laws at all? They are unconstitutional statutes. No person is morally obligated to obey them and no courts or police are bound to enforce them. Yet the tyrants still do.

  • AnhydrousBob

    Actually I think it is illegal to have guns on this campus – so any law saying that people should not have guns on campus is moot. Andy just had his main point refuted.

    Since you can’t keep any guns off any campus not surrounded completely by 20 feet of razor wire (doubtful that would even work) what is the point of trying? Why not allow people to carry their own protection – be that what it may?

    As to the security guards, it was already mentioned by others that either they must be in all places at all times – otherwise “when seconds count … they are only minutes away”

    • DaveH

      This woman was apparently no innocent flower. All the rules in the world won’t stop a determined killer:
      http://neoneocon.com/2010/02/15/amy-bristol-cold-cases/

      • SiliconDoc

        After seeing the murdering lib professor woman’s history, one wonders what kind of strings have already been pulled in the past to let the lib slip through the checks and achieve the status (albeit short of)that she desired at that point.
        It seems to me it is already a case of libs gone mad, supporting their fellow comrade and traveler in a way that opened the spot for the power freak lefty to begin with, through quite a history that has become apparent.
        The lib University system had no problem giving the unrepentant Bill Ayers the terrorist a very special and highly sought after place, for instance.
        When she was denied her ultimate goal of recognition via tenure, and the corrupt nature of the continuing argument over the number “papers published” and “lib centric approval system” instituted so that the leftist authorities of the University system can use any excuse to deny to even a fellow traveler, it was too much for her, and she snapped.
        That scares the heck out the libs, because they all sense there is something wrong with their twisted mantras and distorted belief system.

  • Robin from Indiana

    Here we go again… Another loonie kills with a gun and now all the gun control people will be hopping on their soap box to preach against the 2nd amendment. Perhaps if one of the people that was killed had a gun on them, it could have been prevented. Taking away our rights is not the answer!

    • David

      The system killed those people by allowing her to remain in society….she has one heck of a record. If our right to bear arms goes, there will be many more dead to follow.

      I really do not think it can happen. Too many Americans own guns and will not just hand them over…..

      • David

        A nut flew a plane into the IRS building today so therefore we should take away all private air planes…

        • s c

          David, use ultraiberal “logic” and you’ll understand how shallow these people ‘think.’ Ultraliberal logic demands that ALL planes in the US be grounded (extend the point to its ultimaye, and every plane in the world should be grounded). All planes are ‘bad.’ If planes don’t fly, then nothing bad can happen.
          This is the same perverted ‘logic’ these yahoos use in Second Amendment matters. Obviously, guns don’t kill. People kill. Planes do not kill. In the Austin matter, innocent people just happened to be in the wrong place.
          I suspect that it helps if an ultraliberal stops reasoning before they get out of grade school. It would explain much, especially in the case of the hordes of useless idiots who go to Washington. They’ll never ‘get it’ when it comes to guns, and I doubt if they’ll ever ‘get it’ in any plane crash.

        • http://aol.com Pathfinder

          Oh! How I do wish that many more of my fellow americans were crazy in this fashion. If al quida would just fly jets into IRS buildings, rather than the pentagon or the world trade toweers, I might be tempted to join. As for myself, I will limit my activity to trying to abolish the income tax through legal means. Considering the facts that this tax violates both the forth and fifth amendments, and is based on an amendment that was NOT properly ratified; it is clearly unconstitutional. ABOLISH INCOME TAX.

  • Michael J.

    Amy Bishop is a very disturbed person. This incident is not the first time that she has taken a life. After drawing first blood on a person who was family, a sibling, her own brother, who was shot dead by her after firing three times with a shotgun and ultimately ruled an accident? Since then Ms. Bishop has had numerous run in’s with law enforcement to include suspected pipe bomber and assaulting a women over a baby high chair at a IHOP restaurant. Shouldn’t someone have seen this coming? And have you ever heard of a case where a fatal shooting which involved three shots being fired was ruled an accident?

    In this current case she walked into a room full of people that she new were unarmed and proceeded to shoot six of them, killing three.
    Do you wonder why Janet Napolitano has not stepped forward and proclaimed Bishop to be a domestic terrorist? Because Bishop is a Progressive Liberal extremist with an obsession with Barack Obama, that’s why.

    They will, and are using this incident however, to re-enforce their position that faculty and students on campus should be denied the right to concealed carry and self protection against such actions by deranged individuals. I say that if concealed carry was already in practice that Amy Bishop would never have attempted this heinous act of cowardice.

  • http://yahoo.com Jack from Seadrift

    One already has the RIGHT to carry! WE Must start useing our RIGHT’S even if the (so called LAW’S)say we CANT! Again I carry to stay alive. Not to kill, but to keep from being KILLED!!!!!!!!!
    Carry a firearm or be carryed by the “ARM’S” of Friend’s for not

    • JC

      It’s simple -
      Know Guns, Know Liberty, Know Freedom.
      No Guns, No Liberty, No Freedom.

  • Maranatha! Mark

    The shooter has had a history of violence and even had ploted to bomb someone else in the past… she should have been a convicted felony, and unable to have a firearm. However, for those like Sean who apparently don’t know about Conceal-Carry permits, you have to complete a firearms training course and go through State Police background checks… to make sure you aren’t a felon, in order to get the permit to carry. So yes, I agree, an untrained person with a gun is a danger to everyone around, but most folks who complete the conceal-carry training courses and “qualify” to and receive those permits, should be reasonably expected to be as responsible as some law officials I have seen use firearms. But there is nothing, 100% for sure, and once in a while a nut will fall from the tree and cause trouble. Just as you can’t take person that flips out and takes a baseball bat to someone, you shouldn’t base your policies on the occasional nut, if you only serve the criminals and those who do flip out, for no one will be able to stand against them, and thus the death and injury is magnafied many times needlessly.

    That’s my opinion.

    • Destry in Washington State

      I don’t know about your state, but Washington is, first, an open carry state where anyone who can legally possess firearms may carry weapons openly in public. Second, Washington is also a shall issue state where, after applying for a concealed pistol license, undergoing the required background check and found to have a clean record will be issued a CPL; no training required. That being stated, firearms training is highly advisable for anyone seriously considering acquiring a weapon for personal protection and becoming knowledgeable about, or at least familiar with, the pertinent laws governing carry and use in the state where one resides.

      • JC

        I’m with you. The handling of guns should be muscle memory and that takes education and practice.

    • http://aol.com Pathfinder

      One question, if you have a right to do something; why do you need a permit to actually do it? I think this applies to everything. Do I need a permit to breathe? Do I need permission to sleep? Why should anyone need permission to carry a weapon (not just firearms, but swords, clubs, knives, etc.), if they DO, indeed, have a right to do so?

  • Jeff,Texan

    “I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy.” Can’t remember who said it first,doesn’t matter I will say and do it too!”Better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six!” The universal law of “Self Defense” is inalienable..these so called gun banners are some of the worst hypocrites.Their view is only people THEY say can carry firearms,but they are faulty in their recall of history both recent and ancient.Are the police incapable of committing acts of murder? Only by passing laws exempting them from prosecution is this possible.I will personaly pay anyone $1,000.00 for factual proof of a gun “floating into a room, and by itself, shooting a human being”! Well then,we are discussing acts by “Human Control” then (or the lack of control).A firearm is an inantimate object,merely a tool.No more dangerous than a can of gasoline!What’s next “Gas can registration”?OMG!What ever happened to people minding their own business and stop trying to tell others how to live?If you’re afraid of guns.DON’T OWN ONE!! Also, where were the police/prosecutors when this Professor shot and murdered her own brother? Do you think the law enforcement in the U.S.A. is obligated to provide the citizenry with protection?Don’t know? Better check with the U.S.Supreme Court for the true answer..you will be shocked!!!

    • independant thinker

      I have noticed many police departments that still use the motto “to PROTECT and serve” on their cars. Since they are not required to honor the protect part of that motto perhaps we should sue them to get it removed.

    • Claire

      Jeff, Texan–”I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy.” Clever statement. The sad thing is that sometimes cops cannot do their jobs like they should because of laws that are made for the criminals. And then again, there are some rogue cops. To me, being a cop would be a tough job. Sometimes I think this line of work falls into the category of: “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” BTW, I love Texas! Texas state police are great! And Texas judges have been good to my show dogs! And I love the food and the hospitality of the Texans.

  • michael

    Guns should not be allowed in school’s, state and federal buildings,parks or churches. anyone that thinks otherwise have watched too many westerns. grow up people.

    • Michael J.

      Michael,
      Too bad you were not there to remind Amy Bishop that day, naive twerp!

      • michael

        I am not Naieve. I am just not paranoid like the rest of you, ever since 9-11 the conservatives have been acting like chiken little yelling the sky is falling. get some medication for your paranoia.

        • DaveH

          You make this statement:
          “Guns should not be allowed in school’s, state and federal buildings,parks or churches”.
          Then you call us paranoid?
          Typical Liberal Loon.

          • michael

            Technically according to the 2nd amendment the only ones to have guns our the militia. but as you conservatives nuts always do you interpret the constitution and the bible in order to make yourselves feel better. For example the 10 commandments says though shall not kill, not thall shall not kill except in times of war or the goverment can kill someone. Itis amatter of interpretation.

          • Joe H.

            michael,
            No the supreme court read that into it also!!! We have the right to own, carry, and use if needed!!!

          • DaveH

            That argument is so old. It’s been reaffirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. So now the Liberals are arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the States.

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

            Which part of “the people” do you not understand?

          • JeffH

            I really wanted to contribute here but you patriots have it pretty well covered.
            Thanks.

          • James

            Michael, Exodus 21:12 reads: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” (There are over 20 crimes in God’s Law that are capital offenses.) Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law…For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

          • James

            Michael, Joe H. is right, the Supreme Court did once hold that the Second Amendment’s restriction applied only to militia-type weapons. However, the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case reversed that and held that the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies to individual-type weapons as well. Hence, the H.R. 45 Bill, if passed, will be unconstitutional.

          • eyeswideopen

            Daveh, NAME CALLING AGAIN? You can’t stop can you? And that is ok, as long as you don’t critize others for doing the same thing.

          • JeffH

            eyes, you really do have a tingling for DaveH don’t you.

        • JC

          Another “feel good” utopian who thinks everything will be fine if the guns just “go away”. Reality Check…criminals aren’t giving up their guns…governments aren’t giving up their guns…so guess what? I’m not giving up mine. And by the way, some folks who earned the right to be called Americans did so because they had guns to do it with.
          I would really like to think that I knew my kids teacher and that he or she was proficient with a firearm and carried one. I’d feel much safer knowing that. Now Michael…off you go for a dacaf latte. ;)

          • michael

            Typical redneck moron

          • J C

            Thank God for redneck morons eh? Who do you think built the country?
            You lily livered latte lickers? Nope! But that’s ok, we’ll carry your weight too…we always have.

          • Michael J.

            Michael, I think JC’s got you pegged with the decaf latte, but I’ll go a little further by adding that you probably have a pasty pale complexion and pencil thin wrist like that of an pre-adolescent female and would never think of calling someone a redneck moron to their face but feel compelled to do so having a keyboard and cyberspace between us to protect your puniness. But have no fear Michael, just the mere sight of your intelectual frailties would probably be enough to make a real patriot puke and realize they could do nothing to make your suffering any worse than it already is.

          • JeffH

            JC…” lily livered latte lickers “? I love ya man! That is a great one, I’m still bustin up over it. Mind if I use it, Great!

          • JC

            Feel free my friend! ;)

        • Claire

          michael–Medication for our paranoia? Well, to me an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. To me, this sentence is the best medication I can have. My husband and I are gunowners and proud of it. Does this mean we will shoot anyone that comes to our door? No. Does this mean we are going to go around shooting the heck out of everything and everyone? No. But I will tell you we will protect ourselves, our family and our home. Consider the wackos that are killing people—are we supposed to just stand there and let them kill us? Sure, there are people that “snap” but it is up to the people that are involved with these wackos to make sure they do not commit these crimes in the first place. I said before, when the handwriting is on the wall and a person displays unstable tendencies, then do something about it before they do kill someone. Paranoia? Call it what you want, my husband and I are prepared, food, shelter, and the basic needs should some catastrophe hit America. I do not call it paranoia, I call it common sense.

          • Claire

            Another item–the word “redneck” is a stupid word flung around by people that do not have the wisdom to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

      • G in MO

        I know that this woman is responsible for the first person whom she shot. But I place the blame for the other five directly on people such as yourself. I seriously doubt anyone could have stopped the first shot, but a trained citizen (who is, BTW, “the militia”) with a legally possessed and concealed handgun could have prevented her from getting off more than one or two shots.

        Progressives, such as yourself, scream about your “liberties” but you are such hypocrites it’s not funny. You want the government to be your nanny and protector – as long as it’s someone else sacrificing their rights, as defined by law, rather than you being inconvenienced by not being allowed your “perceived” (read “imagined”) rights.

        • JeffH

          They are liberals, please drop the term progressive. It sounds too much like “climate change”.

          • JeffH

            Sorry, just a pet peeve.

    • MamLoui

      Guns should not be allowed in school’s, state and federal buildings,parks or churches. OK that is the law as it stands. It left three lives lost, if carry was permitted the loss would have been one or two lives lost at worst. What is the remaining life worth? If you cannot do the math it is because it does not fit your political agenda.

    • http://aol.com Pathfinder

      Actually, it is not watching too many westerns; but the reading of too many history books that causes me to disagree with you. I am grown up (57 years old) and knwo what happens to an unarmed populace; it is massacred. To cite just one example, Germany 1938 passed gun control legislation; not long afterwards the national socialists were shoving jews into ovens. (You need not take my word for this. The organization, Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership, will be glad to provide verification and cite numerous other examples as well.)

      If you are already aware of this, and not simply ignorant of the historical facts; then just who do you intend as your genocidal target?

  • Jim in Alabama

    “The accident has also spurred Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus”

    “Accident” Really? The word implies occurance without intent, I don’t belive it applies here.

    • G in MO

      THANK YOU! I was a bit perturbed by the spelling mistakes in the “article” – but someone calling this an “accident” is just ludicrous.

      • libertytrain

        G in MO – I agree with the term accident as being peculiar – but I don’t know what spelling mistakes you are talking about – what did you find? I think of it as a game when I see comments like this but I give…I see none other than a couple commas I would have put in and I would have capped Wild West.

  • Ron Oliver

    So many thoughts and opinions. The only pattern I’ve been able to see here is that people with intent to harm others seem to pick these places where hand guns have been banned. I now call these places, I.E., churches, schools, public parks, Federal buildings, banks, etc., targets of opportunity. I have a concealled carry permit and I do carry a loaded Glock 23, .40 cal. semi-auto pistol. With my training and military experience, that woman might have gotten off one shot, but no more. Let’s see, three people were killed and three wounded. I perosnally feel like I could have prevented at least two people from being killed and all three from being wounded and we would not have needed any further discussion about Amy Bishop other than final arrangements. That also means no lengthy, expensive taxpayer trial and later life incarseration at our expense.

    You might also be enlightened to know that in a situation where lawenforcement is in need of back up, a concealled carry person is obligated, in some states, to advise the officers on scene that he or she has a concealled carry, is carrying and offer themselves for assistance to law enforcement. It’s kind of like multiplying the size and manpower of your policeforce. Is that a bad idea?

    In closing, I find that many people fear horses because they don’t understand them, dogs for the same reason and guns for the same. Get educated, get informed, get a gun and learn how to use it properly and treat it with respect. Then and only then will you honestly be at my level.

    • DaveH

      Ron,
      Guns scare me too, but what scares me a lot more is a disarmed population where only the law-breakers and government have weapons.

      I read in one article where Amy is on Suicide Watch. Heaven forbid that she should off herself and save the taxpayers a ton of money.

      • Claire

        What amazes me is the fact she taught in college. But then again, nothing amazes me anymore. There are a lot of “twisted minds” out there that are in positions that they should not be in. She is a nut case that should have been dealt with properly when she shot her brother. Just like the nut that killed all those people in Fort Hood. There was/is handwriting on the wall, WHY doesn’t anyone see it and report it? WHY do these lowlife get a free pass? The people in authority need to get on the ball.

        • JeffH

          Not to mention that some people handle the pressures of life differantly. When I get frustrated with the constant negative news and the liberal rants I just walk away from it for awhile until I’m ready to jump back into it.

          • Claire

            JeffH–That is the best thing to do–walk away until you have calmed down. When I get aggravated, I throw tennis balls for the dogs until we are worn out. Their happy faces make me feel better almost instantly.

  • ONTIME

    If there was a law about not possessing a gun while on campus in AL. then it was just another piece of paper that was uneforceable, Amy ignored the law as do any in her condition and committed murder by shooting her fellow workers. She has killed before and threatened others with bodily violence and yet the law was not used properly to help stop her careening path of violence….Why?

    Politics, friends in high places, legal lies and irresponsible public servants all seem to come into the picture here and it was this careless, thoughtless attitude that allowed Amy to kill her fellow man, it was not the gun laws or the gun that did so it was almost a premeditated misuse of the law and a neglect by those in positions of power that let Amy thru the net of the law to kill.

    Had the staff in that room been legally allowed and licensed to carry a fire arm whose to say what Amy may have done or what may have come about but they didn’t, they could not defend themselves or each other and the evidence is mounting to show you how incapable the law can become when it is crippled by incompetence and neglect.

    • SiliconDoc

      I’ll take a shot at that !
      ” Had the staff in that room been legally allowed and licensed to carry a fire arm whose to say what Amy may have done or what may have come about but they didn’t, they could not defend themselves or each other…”

      First of all, put in proper perspective as you did, it is a sad and horrifying position to have been in that room, Unconstitutionally and illegally disarmed.
      It’s just about unimaginable, watching your fellow colleagues being dropped one by one and shrinking as your turn comes, as the mighty power of the Tyrannistic State forces you to be defenseless and in absolutely powerless horror. What a shame.
      Next, the answer concerning concealed or open carry and what the lunatic that was denied tenure might have done is more than obvious.
      She would have been scared out of her wits to even try it, and would have never even made the attempt in that room.
      The sneaking suspicion or even knowledge that one of her victims might have a more than effective response would have shut her down before she got started – she would have never, ever, even tried to do it.
      That doesn’t necessarily preclude some sneak attack into an office on say one or two unaware objects of her hatred, but a roomful of possible effective opposition rules out this scenario entirely.
      She certainly otherwise made reasonable enough decisions based on similar pro and con conclusions in her day to day work there to have lasted quite some time.
      The obvious initial conclusion is with concealed or open carry as deterrent her targets of opportunity are immediately reduced to one or two at best.
      Our entire government is fully aware of this principle, a current example being the argument over Iran acquiring nuclear weapons – or the older “mutually assured destruction” scenarios of the cold war.
      With concealed or open carry, an “assured destruction” would have been the murderer’s known to be likely personal fate before committing the action.
      Instead of the person on the murderous rampage being taken down by a protective and honorable and uplifting “public fellow citizen who cares” that rallies public spirit toward cohesion and the good and imbues society with the notion “the kook won’t get away it” that makes them feel protected and cared for by their fellow citizens, we, as a society are treated to either a painfully extended murderous rampage with a finalizing suicide (seems rather commonly reported), or the blood stained mess and gaggle of jockeying politicians and activists trying to sort out “what has happened to our society”.
      It’s become quite an embarrassing and shameful situation.

  • http://msn Dale

    Andy Palosi and people like him live in the fantasy world depicted by Hollywood. I live in Colorado and have visited the museums in our towns. They have lots of pictures of the days Andy refers to as the “wild west”, what you see in the pictures is reality, which is normally dressed people without guns. There were a few mining towns that were lawless for a while but that didn’t last long, civility is required for people to live together. The people you see with guns are people who have a need for guns such as law enforcement, hunters and ranchers. The world protrayed by Hollywood is not the real world, who would want to live like that.

    People who commit crimes do so where they think there is a good chance of getting away with it. How often do people commit crimes in police stations? Work places and schools are good places for shootings, people do not normally care guns or other weapons in them.

  • G in MO

    Whatever else you may get from this “article” – it was no “accident.” But the writer used that word in order to make it seem that no one was responsible, that the gun was bad and the shooter was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I’ve got no beef with educated people who have been through firearms training and choose not to own guns. Their opinion is valid, as they have informed themselves.

    But, if you haven’t been educated and trained to properly use and care for a firearm, SHUT UP. Your opinion is ignorant and, therefore, irrelevant.

    • michael

      I come from a Hunting family and I am trained in the use of fire arms. I just believe that only a coward needs to carry one all the time either that or they are using the gun to make up for some masculine defiency.

      • Michael J.

        Michael,
        Why is it that you people always see things so bass ackwardly? Amy Bishop was the coward here because she knew she could perpetrate the crime unapposed.

      • JeffH

        michael, if I can ask, how old are you? Your comments read as if they came from someone that hasn’t put to many years in. You speak like a liberal, but don’t yet have the rant of a well seasoned liberal. There is still time for you to see the truth.

  • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

    What a shame that our nation’s capitol has been the nation’s leader in per capita capitol offenses far too often. You have lead in murder, robbery, assault and so many other’s, it’s a crying shame to even try and have to repeat them all. You have, for decades, disarmed your citizens, dumbed them down with your woefully inadequate public school system (which is why you struck down your highly successful school voucher program), and led them to accept crumbs from the public’s trough as if it is their God-given right to be taken care of by others. As if they were your woefully incompetent, inadequate charges (or slaves, as you treat them), unwilling or unable to take care of themselves. A “Womb to the tomb” mentality, if you will (and you will keep on instilling that propaganda for your benefit until, or unless, you are physically removed from your perches of self aggrandizing, self serving power by your constituents). Which leads us to why you are fighting tooth and nail to nullify the recent supreme court’s decision regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms there. Jefferson (Thomas – not the TV one) noted that that if we, the people, decided that we needed to change our government, we had the right to do so, by force of arms if necessary. Hence, he also noted that: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”. He, amongst others, also noted that the government should be afraid of it’s armed citizenry, not the other way around. The intent of that is to ensure that the elected powers that be do what is right, just and good for the citizens, not for themselves. In Illinois, Kathleen Thomas, running for the senate seat vacated by Obama said, “Criminals will always have access to weaponry. Why would we ever want to limit the law-abiding citizen from having firearms?”. My kind of woman, she is. There have been so many studies done, both good and credible ones like the ones done by Kleck or Lott, and the pure “Junk” ones touted by the Associated Press and the rest of the Main Stream Media, regarding gun ownership, concerning violent crime and innocent victim safety statistics. Unless you really dig deeper into the methodologies used, you might actually believe you’re safer if you don’t have a gun to protect you. You might also (unless you’re “Smarter than a fifth grader”) believe that you’re more likely to survive a sudden, violent encounter, by waiting for “The Boys in Blue” to come to your rescue, after you finally get through to 911. (Even if you were put on hold forever.) Remember this: “When seconds count, minutes don’t matter”. Your freedom to trust your life to others ends when you try to take away my right to trust myself to defend mine.

  • Robert

    You can take it to the Bank, that this administration and their liberal cohorts are working on a plan right now. But first, the administration has to finish bankrupting the country and figuring a way to stop the November elections from happening.

    • JeffH

      I recieved this email from the National Association for Gun Rights Check this out;

      ATF Tries to Revoke “Montana Made”
      State Sovereignty Laws
      We all predicted this would happen.

      In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states’ sovereign gun laws.

      The “Montana Made” law, just like Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

      Much of the claimed federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant’s favorite subterfuge, the “interstate commerce” clause. In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth
      http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=152

  • Mohut

    I think the last name of the Director for the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus pretty much sums it up, sportsfans — PELOSI!!!

    The liberal progressives may be stupid forlks, but they’re not so stupid as to really believe that an ordnance to keep guns off campus is going to stop a crazed person from bringing one onto campus. They know it’ll only keep guns out of the hands of the honest folk. It’s a step for them — one of many to take our guns away so that they can turn this country into a police state with them as the rulers. If you believe all their talk about equal rights, peace, etc., then you’ll want to buy my bridge in Brooklyn.

  • Mohut

    I have a good friend who is a sheriff in our country and he’s responsible for training his department.

    He signs all of his e-mails with … When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away! & Support your right to keep and bear arms.

    That about sums it up, I’d say.

    • Mohut

      I meant “county”, not “country.”

      • jim

        Hi Mohut, I would say your County Sheriff has seen enough examples of the Deputys being there ALMOST on time to know what he is talking about. I would take no consolation knowing I was dead for only a minute when help showed up.

  • Patrick

    Remember the Ten Commandments? Thou shalt not commit murder? When it was taught in the public square, i.e. public schools and government? Since the elimination of those teachings you can trace the rise in which murder, thievery, and a host of other social ills has risen in current soceity and you you don’t have to be a believer to appreciate that absolute teachings has been the glue that embraces the rights of justice, freedom, and to defend against harm towards the individual, family, and property. God understands fallen nature, so should we.

    • jim

      Dear God, How come you let so much violence happen in school. Signed Parent. Dear parent, I’m not allowed in school. Signed God.

  • Warrior

    Just another far left loon.

  • Les

    Remember VA TECH where many died and wounded. If it had not been gun free then the killer may have been stopped before the carnage.

    The gun control people think your life is expendable for their ideas.

  • http://gmail High Plains Pat

    It shows how squirrelly professors are and out of touch with reality, look at the overeducated socalist President we have. Thats academia at its finest. Should make tenure void and every one be allowed to carry. Save on lawyers and trial time if someone had just put her down at the time of the shootings.

    • s c

      HighPlainsPat, it’s much worse than professors being out-of-touch. One of the many curses that plague America is due to the watered-down education system that went into high gear back in the ’50s.
      As for King Obummer being over-educated, this is not at all accurate. A Haavid graduate who takes a degree in any field other than science tends to be just another social justice advocate who will get instant job security without having to earn it.
      Tenure at a university is extremely political, and amounts to a slow form of poison (for society, that is). Ultraliberal
      progressivism and all its many psychotic forms [socialism, fascism, communism, etc.] are inherently anti-sanity, anti-justice, anti-common sense, anti-civilization and must be rejected by everyone who loves freedom.

  • Wally

    I am not a fan of guns, I do not own any. I have used them for hunting more than 50 years ago as well as when I served in the Army. Through the centuries there have been many ways of killing. The gun just happens to be easy to conceal and carry, it does not require much effort to use. A 90 pound 90 year old is an equal to a 175 pound 25 year old gang banger.

    Shootings at schools around the world have had one thing in common, guns were not allowed by anyone. People who obey they law do not have guns to protect themselves. Criminals are criminals because they do not obey the law —- so they have guns. So, a no gun zone is a wonderful place to go when all you want to do is kill as many people as you can with a minimum amount of danger to yourself.

    I do believe if someone wishes to protect themselves, they should get both classroom and firing range training so they are proficient in handling a weapon.

    Of all the mass shootings, every one of them could have had fewer victims if only one person had a gun for self protection. Yes, it is unfortunate, but that’s what life is like today.

    Sadly, worldwide “government” statistics have proven beyond any doubt, that when there is gun control — more people are victims of crimes. When the average law abiding citizen is allowed to carry a gun, all crimes go down.

    Every last gun control group has predicted blood baths if people were allowed to carry guns on their person for self defence. Yes,a few licensed people have used their weapon in a criminal manner and if they are not in prison they have had their license revoked. Criminals are not allowed to have a carry license.

  • Mindy B

    A few random thoughts:

    My first thought was that “Hitting the target with the first shot” is the only acceptable gun control.

    To anyone who thinks abolishing guns will abolish murder I ask – instead of making guns illegal why don’t you make murder illegal?

    People who want to make laws against guns think those laws should pertain to others but never to themselves.

    Instead of worrying about what people are carrying in their pocket/purse/holster, why don’t colleges worry more about what they put in class rooms? Why was a proven nut like Amy ever hired in the first place? The blame for these deaths belongs squarely on the shoulders of the college administration.

    Those of us who grew up watching Wild Wild West movies know the good guy always had a gun and always had it handy (not locked up with the bullets in someone else’s saddlebag). And the good guys always won.

    To michael and Andy Pelosi – To help me understand your position re gun control, would you please answer a few questions? I’m sure they will be easy:
    (1) Please tell me why Washington DC had the highest murder rate in the country while having the most restrictive gun laws. Now that the gun laws have been relaxed, the murder rate has gone down. How can this be?

    (2) If bad guys forcibly broke into your house and threatened you and your family with guns, what would you do: (1) beg for mercy (2) soil your pants (3) run for cover while yelling “Save yourselves!” (4) grab your gun and try to save the whole family (5) offer everything you own while holding your smallest child in front of you for protection? I’m betting on #2 or #5, but also betting you wish you could do #4. Any other options?

    (3) If you had been lost in the woods for several days and had yelled for help so much your voice was barely a whisper, then you heard voices in the far distance, what would you do: (1) try to yell with what little voice you had left (2) wave a branch in the air three times (3) stomp your foot three times (4) fire three shots into the air? (5) Other

    (4) Name one country under tyranny whose citizens are legally armed.

    (5) If Americans are forced to surender our arms, will you guarantee all the criminals will comply? Will you guarantee some will comply? Will you guarantee at least three will comply?

    michael and Andy – you are colossal control freaks!

    • michael

      First of all I am not saying surrender your guns if you feel you need them fine. What I am saying is keep them out of schools and other places that people generally could get ticked off. I also think each individual buisness should have the freedom to post signs banning firearms from their premisis.

      • J C

        Absolutely right! That way every lunatic criminal with a gun can have a field day of soft targets! Do you actually “think” at all?

      • Michael J.

        Michael,
        The law you speak of already exists. Didn’t work out too well for Amy Bishop’s victim’s, did it?

      • Mindy B

        michael – Tell us where you can be sure nobody will “get ticked off.” In a stadium? At work? In a classroom? On the highway? At church? At a romantic dinner for two? Out in the woods? Home alone? People have been killed in all those places. Probability – higher in some places and lower in others. Possibility – always and everywhere. People who are going to shoot someone do not obey signs or laws. Each business does have the right to post signs banning shooting – isn’t that enough? Better yet – let’s make a law against killing other people. Get real – if guns are banned, only the government will be safe – which is who a gun ban is designed to protect. Learn the meaning of the word “oppression” because that is what you are arguing for.

  • http://aol.com Pathfinder

    Claims that the second amendment only applies to “the militia” are weak on several points. Rather than continue the debate, I will simply assert that the second amendment does acknowledge a right already possesed by individuals and given to them by GOd.
    However, I will also insist further, that even if you were correct regarding the second amendment (again I say you are not); then my God given right to keep and bear arms (not just guns, but arms of any kind) is still acknowledged and protected by the constitution. Specifically, as written in the Ninth amendment. (I suggest you go ahead and look up and read that one before you try to deny that this right is constitutionally recognized.)
    PS – Neigther the government nor the constitution GRANT us any rights. Our rights are given to us by God and are simply recognized and/or protected by our government under the constitution.

    • James

      Pathfinder, I agree, our rights existed before we created the federal government, and are inalienable. The Second Amendment’s bone of contention is to whom does “shall not be infringed” apply? Every Supreme Court decision (including the recent Heller case) has held that it, and all Bill of Rights restrictions, apply to the federal government only. Why Americans wont believe that, to me at least, is mind-boggling.

      • JeffH

        That will be settled this year! And when the dust settles, it will apply to the states also…

  • Claire

    What can I say? Typical university professors, most of them do have a screw loose.

    • JeffH

      Claire, it must be that “hugher education” that all the libs bragg about.

      • Claire

        JeffH–this so-called “higher education” sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. I remember the stuff my son used to tell me when he was in college. And that was in the 80s. Some of the faculty were screwballs. Talk about indoctrination. I was concerned about the garbage they spewed back then. I thank God my son came out unscathed and has become the person he is today.

        • JeffH

          Claire, sometimes a good upbringing can influence the end product.

          • Claire

            JeffH–A good morning to you! The good Lord knows my husband and I tried. All a parent can do is their best and then hope and pray for a good outcome. I know I am very proud of my son. He is a good person. I thank God every day for my son and my husband. They are the highlight of my life.

          • JeffH

            Claire, from what online contact we have, your son and husband must feel the same as you do. It is nice to hear/read that from you. Keep your chin up, always. You are a great patriot.

          • Claire

            JeffH–And you, Sir, are a great patriot. Have a great day!

  • L, USA

    Where was the return fire?, I ask! Even a .22 short ss would have made a difference… P needs to check history, because there was a Wild West!!! Colt .45 helped tame it.

    • Joe H.

      L,USA,
      If you try to tell a lib that Colt 45 helped tame the wild west, they’ll tell you that Malt liquor wasn’t made way back then!!!!

  • Elizabeth

    I don’t believe this is a case for argument against the right to carry a gun – it’s a case of an unstable woman who is carrying a gun despite her history of gun use. Where and how did she get that gun? Whatever happened to background checks? Why should her illegal use of a weapon impact me, or any other law abiding citizen when we obey the law? Let’s not forget our rights! What I find abhorant is the tolerance of innocent people being sacrificed because of public tolerance of gangs, illegal drugs, violent crimes, illegal weapon trades and sales and all the other problems that crime allows. How about paying more money for the police officers who are out there 24/7 on the streets where you won’t walk. Maybe then you’ll feel safe – maybe.

    • Claire

      Elizabeth–In my town we will be laying off about 21 policemen. It started out to be 30 but now they have lowered the number. The policemen that we keep will probably have to work extra time. And I can only imagine what the crime rate will be in the future. The wonderful politicians that run my town should be so proud of themselves. (Sarcasm) Money spent unnecessarily on frivolous items, (desks for offices), $300,000 of the stimulus money went for an addition onto a bike trail, roads in the best subdivisions and around the Mall and department stores are always maintained nicely, while the rest of the town goes to hell in a handbasket. My town does not attract industry or factories, only department stores, restaurants and grocery stores. And oh my they brag about these businesses creating jobs. Well, who in the hell can make a living when these stores hire people on a part-time basis only? No benefits, no nothing. I could go on and on. I know people from church that have to work 2-3 different jobs to make ends meet and they never complain because this is the way it is. There are state offices, but they do not hire very often, and the people that work for the state aren’t about to quit their jobs. The politicians that rule my town certainly do not have their priorities straight. I can hardly wait to help vote them out of office. BTW–the “mayor” is a democrat.

      • Claire

        Sorry, I really got into it. I could not help myself.

  • John Galt

    To hell with banning guns on campus, we need to ban liberals. And Claire, I think we should start laying off politicians, i.e. non-essentials.

    • Claire

      John Galt–I feel kind of silly right now about my rant posted above. I could have added another paragraph or two about the wasteful spending here in town. It seems the mayor is too busy trying to choose which woman he is going to take out every night. This just simply cannot continue on the way it has been. Our teachers have to buy supplies out of their own money, whoa–I am going to get a grip or I will be ranting and everyone on this post will think I am a nutjob.
      Yes, we must clean house and get rid of these politicians that think they can walk on water, and they are getting by with it. Well, come election time I hope we upset the applecart. They need to get out.

  • KDL

    I am a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative Republican, but I strongly believe that guns should only be carried by the military and police. I won’t allow a gun in my home. Never have, never will. That is absolutely the only point I agree with the Liberals on.

    • jim

      KDL, We won’t make you keep a gun in YOUR home, Just don’t try to take the ones out of ours.

  • http://thericecookers.com/ Kris Eismann

    Another great write-up with logical points, We’ve been a lurker right here for a short time but wish to be more involved in the foreseeable future.

  • Colin Cody

    The Liberal stance against an armed citizenry is easily proven to be sheer lunacy by looking at two towns, Kennesaw, Georgia and Morton Grove, Illinois. The good people in Kennesaw decided to pass a law making gun ownership and training mandatory for most people, and their crime rate went down immediately thereafter. At about the same time, the fools in Morton Grove made gun ownership illegal for their citizens, and the crime rate went up immediately as any sane person could easily have predicted. Even armed criminals will be afraid to attack an armed citizen, whereas, they will attack the unarmed at will.

    People are afraid of guns because they do not understand how extremely safe they are when properly handled. Anyone can learn with proper training how to use one safely and everyone should do so immediately if not sooner. Unless you have a mean wife, it is comforting to note that trained women are much better shots than are men. There are excellent books on this subject, all worthy of careful reading.

    For those who cannot afford to purchase an excellent firearm, may I suggest that you strap on a waist pack large enough that it could conceivably hold a pistol. The bad guys don’t know whether you are packin’ heat or not, and it is highly unlikely that they will be willing to risk finding out. That policy alone could save the lives of many innocent people on campus and off.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.