You do realize that during the University of Texas, civilians got out their hunting rifles and returned fire on the sniper. No doubt their actions saved a few lives. One of the civilians was even deputized and was part of the assault on the tower which ended when Mr.Whitman was killed. If some of the VT students had been armed there is no telling how many lives would have been saved!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
2007-10-29 13:55:06 · 17 answers · asked by plezurgui 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
tyesa - well, these private properties receive Federal Dollars and according to precedent, if it receives money from the government, then it is required to honor the constitution. Universities have been subjected to the 1st Amendment requirements, what is the difference-NONE.
2007-10-29 16:42:32 · update #1
LeAnne - It is NOT up for debate. It is a constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL right!
2007-10-29 16:44:33 · update #2
The right to life and the means to defend that right to life should not be denied by any entity.
As far as the Kip Kinkel episode, read with understanding this time.
"When his rifle ran out of ammunition and Kinkel began to reload, a wounded student tackled Kinkel, who attempted to kill the student with the Glock. He only managed to fire one shot before it was knocked out of his hand. More students helped restrain Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him."
If the "unarmed" tackler of the” reloading" Kinkel had been armed, how may shots would have Kinkel got off before getting plugged.
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
L. Neil Smith, _The Probability Broach_
"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control."
George L. Roman
"The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it."
James A. Donald
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
Joseph Stalin
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
Heinrich Himmler
"It is often easier for our children to obtain a gun than it is to find a good school."
Joycelyn Elders
"Maybe that's because guns are sold at a profit, while schools are provided by the government."
David Boaz
2007-10-29 15:25:44 · answer #1 · answered by crunch 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hello! plezurqu,
I have to agree with Le Anne. I am a strong supporter for the Second Amendment. NRA is in my blood I have been a member for a long time. There are laws that will take or keep guns away from undesirable people already. Enforce the Law and there should not be to much problem like it is. The reason it is out of control is that the Law are there; they are not enforced.
Stay Safe,
Bulldog
2007-10-30 02:42:42 · answer #2 · answered by BULLDOG 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
God I love guns and Pres. Bush and VP Cheney
2007-10-29 22:07:44 · answer #3 · answered by Dan 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Boy, the gun control liberals are out in droves tonight....
Anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun....should be allowed to own a gun....period.
2007-10-29 21:51:50 · answer #4 · answered by Lilliput1212 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Govt financed institutions, court houses, and the White house.
2007-10-29 21:03:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I guess it boils down to a simple debate - if everyone was armed, would campus shootings go down or up?
2007-10-29 21:00:05 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It should be up to the University!
2007-10-29 21:37:38 · answer #7 · answered by Wyco 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Right, then I guess arming the inmates are next, to help make sure that they don't get raped! The question is where does the madness stop? Who do we let make that decision? I'm pretty sure I won't be voting for you! Armed students, my God!
2007-10-29 21:03:27 · answer #8 · answered by delux_version 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
It isn't public property, they can do what they want.
You want guns in schools? Fine, move to Medford, Oregon and please leave the rest of us a choice to send our students to a place where there aren't a bunch of armed hillbillies patrolling. Thanks.
It may interest you to know that the person who stopped Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Oregon WAS NOT ARMED! How 'bout them apples, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipland_Kinkel
2007-10-29 20:59:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
Blah Blah Blah - who cares? Gun debates are red herrings.
2007-10-29 21:34:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋