Gun Fears Lock Down 2 Southeast Colleges
"Gun Fears."
In other words, hoplophobia.
Campus policy is dictated by mental illness. The inmates really are running the asylum.
I don't suppose it will occur to anyone that if more people were armed, bad guys wouldn't know that they can rule the campus with impunity--at least for long enough to accomplish what they've set out to do.
Living in fear is a hell of a pathetic state for supposedly free people. No one should have to.
But if forced to make a choice, what would you rather fear: Being caught with a gun or being caught without one?
It's past time we mastered our fears and lived like men.
5 comments:
I wonder what message they should send to the students that are in the direct line of fire?
Duck? You are about to be shot? Now is your last opportunity to pee your pants?
David, I think this is where you say, "Good Grief".
David,
Sadly I fear being caught with a firearm more than being caught without one. If I am caught without a firearm I have to use a different tool to protect my life. However, if I am caught in a gun free zone with a firearm my life is worse than over. I get thrown into a cage with the dregs of society. Heck, I become one of the dregs of society, especially after the State has ground every penny out of my family. At the end of whatever mandatory sentence I am left with a scarlet letter. A felon, where not only most of my civil rights are held in abeyance, but also restricting my potential jobs.
Sadly, that will happen even if I actually have need of a firearm in a gun free zone. Sadly, I expect that if someone had been armed and took down either the NIU shooter or the VT shooter that person would be up on charges for carrying concealed in a gun free zone. Naturally, it would likely take a couple of years before charges were filed.
I don't fear either scenario, but my right to equip myself any damn way I want as regards my right to arms is not open to debate. It is not open to a vote, and it is not a subject that can be influenced by the opinions of other less intelligent and less principled people.
That is correct, I know the people who would have me unarmed for their emotional comfort or freer exercise of an agenda opposed to my liberty are not as intelligent or principled as I. I am not obligated to pretend respect for them or their opinions.
It must be said that one must respect the power they can exert due to their numbers and control of their own armed enforcers. That does not equate to respect for them or their ambitions of managing or rationing my liberty.
This angers me greatly and ensures I will not ask permission from the enemies of my liberty. They would be well served to ask permission of me for their continued peaceful existence. Yeah, I know, harsh internet braggadocio! Huh uh! I will not be trespassed without consequence.
Why do we always worry about what they can do to us, but never see that we should make them worry about what we can and will do to them? Asked and answered here. We do not value ourselves nor our freedom enough to risk our daily comfort. We do not care for our families enough to secure for them the guarantees we have not the courage to demand be honored for ourselves. It really is that simple.
In either scenario of 'to have or have not', I would harbor unpleasant expectations. However, only one side of that equation is a betrayal of me and my country. Not the criminal, but the legal community and law enforcement because I have a right to expect them to do what is right and they took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. The criminal is just a criminal and though he may have betrayed the social contract I find him less offensive than I do the pretenders to rectitude who have taken oaths and then proceed to betray the entire nation. We call that treason. Which is more criminal the mugger or the traitor?
I posit it is the traitor because he uses the protections he is working to deny others. The mugger, robber, rapist, murderer is just out there to do what he does and cannot count on those protections anywhere except where the traitors have made him all powerful by denying others their rights as bestowed by God, guaranteed by the Constitution and rescinded by the state.
Interesting to note that the Appalachian State incident was ruled a hoax.
Apparently,
Matthew W. Haney, 22, an English major, upon returning to his off-campus apartment Monday, saw some damage to his door and feared he'd be charged for it, the detective recounted.
So the student told his apartment's management complex that he was the victim of a burglary. He then reported it to police, and when questioned, began spinning a tale of a masked, armed intruder wearing a Pink Floyd T-shirt and red and green shoes.
"He thought it would be as easy as saying he got broken into," Stevens said. "He fluffed it up a bit, and you see what it turned into. It was a small mistake that turned into a big mistake."
Good thing no one got hurt during the PSH that followed. Wonder what he'd be charged with then?
Good thing no one got hurt during the PSH that followed. Wonder what he'd be charged with then?
Well, he should be charged with terrorism, just like the brady campaign, VPC, and all the other anti-rights folks. He'll get nothing.
ter•ror•ism \"ter-er-'i-zem\ noun (1795)
: the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion.
What a world!
Post a Comment