A new signature line perhaps? Well put Unsub.

+1

Something we like to call the "black market."

Being prepared shouldn't be a way of life, it is a way of life, however. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Some people don't like my attitude on this, including a couple of people in my own family (parents and sister). But NOBODY is ever going to tell me I can't arm myself in order to protect myself and my wife and kids. Nobody.

Anybody who votes for gun control, or votes for people who promote gun control, or otherwise wants to limit my access to weapons gets no sympathy from me if/when they get murdered. None. To hell with them. That's what they get.

I used to not feel so mean about this, but after fighting this battle for nearly 25 years I am absolutely sick of it. There are too many whining cowards in this world who would gladly give up essential liberty in order to achieve some temporary safety, and deserve neither, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.

****************************

"The price of freedom is blood. The moment we're no longer willing to pay that price, we're no longer free." -- me, circa 1984. I had to modify this slightly for my sig line, unfortunately.

"i don't like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders." -Uncle Ted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

the Nuge for President!

I agree with ya 100%. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Yep. Not only that, the police have NO LEGAL DUTY to protect ANY individual, only society as a whole. Here's a paper I wrote on the topic for school you guys might like:


Security on the College Campus


Security on the college campus has always been a concern, but even more so

in light of several violent incidents that have resulted in the injury or deaths of many

students recently. This seems to be a rising trend, and statistics from the FBI seem to

support this. According to the FBI, crime in schools has risen every year from 2000 to

2004, which is the most recent year data available from the FBI.

It seems that nowadays people lack the concept of personal responsibility that was

more common in years past. In years past generations of Americans were known for their

ingenuity, independence, and wide range of knowledge than enabled them to do a lot

more on their own, without needing to have others do it for them. Now it seems that

Americans know less, have a narrower field of knowledge, and are used to having other

people take care of their needs such as car repair, outsourcing their personal food

production, preparation, and cooking, home maintenance, and even their own personal

protection.

We have become a litigatious society, where everyone is looking for someone

else to blame or sue when they become injured, even due to their own negligence or

mis-use of products. We’ve become a society of helpless individuals with no personal

accountability that are looking to be taken care of, instead of being as independent and

self-reliant as possible. The more you look to others to support your way of life, the

greater your odds of struggle when they can’t or won’t provide the items or services you

need.
Most people do not think about being responsible for their own personal safety.

They mistakenly believe it’s the job of the police to protect them from harm, but as

PublicRights.org stated:

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

This creates a safety gap on most college campuses. Police are not required to

protect students, but students aren’t allowed to protect themselves with an equal show of

force by being allowed to carry guns on most campuses if they have a permit to do so.

More laws inhibiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is not the

answer. Criminals by definition are people who do not obey laws, so making more laws

that will only affect the people who choose to obey them will only make it easier for

criminals to carry out their violent plans.

Many recent mass-shootings in schools, malls, and other places happened to be

places that were “gun free zones”. These places were most likely chosen by the killers

because they knew their murderous plans would have a higher chance of coming to

fruition, because they knew there was a low chance of armed resistance, because only

criminals don’t obey the laws.

Some people mistakenly think that allowing students to arm themselves would

cause an increase in violence, but this has not been shown to be true. According to

ConcealedCampus.org:

"Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes."

I have personally had a permit to carry a handgun in my home state of Indiana for

10 years now, and I have lawfully carried a handgun every day that I’ve resided in my

home state since the age of 18. It is absurd that we are not allowed to carry on a campus,

when we are trusted and legally allowed to carry everywhere else, including banks,

churches, businesses, bars, playgrounds, and other such places. We do not become a

danger to the community by crossing an invisible boundary of a school property. It makes

no sense that in my state you are allowed to drink in a bar while armed, or be in a park

full of children armed, but we’re not trusted to have the means to protect ourselves while

on a school campus.

With the increasing number of school shootings happening, people are beginning

to see that gun free zones do not work, and only enable the killer(s) to more easily carry

out their plans. They are beginning to understand that law-abiding citizens have the right

to protect themselves, and do not become a greater damage to society by crossing an

imaginary border. ConcealedCampus.org listed three quotes from representatives in

Texas, including the governor:

Perry said Texas should consider allowing licensed, law-abiding citizens to carry their authorized weapon anywhere in the state.
"I think a person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in this state if they are licensed, and they have gone through the training," Perry said.
"Whether they're in church or whether they're on a college campus or wherever they are," Perry added. "The last time I checked, putting up a sign that says, 'Don't bring your gun in here,' for someone who has ill intent on their mind, they could (not) care less."

"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." -- Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97

"I ... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless." -- Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97

Some people may think that police are better trained then citizens and they would

be safer to be protected by the police, but even the police don’t always use proper

discretion while armed on campus as a recent student of Ball State found out in Muncie

Indiana. An officer responded to a call of a stranger pounding on someone’s door, and

found who turned out to be a drunken student who the officer says charged at him, and

was shot and killed by the officer. The student was later found to be unarmed, and had a

BAC of .34%. The officer claims he only fired when charged, but at issue is the fact that

the student was shot twice in the back and side, and the officer thought it was needed to

shoot a drunk unarmed individual 4 times to negate the threat. I don’t understand how

you can shoot someone in the back if they are charging at you. I think this example shows

poor judgment, and that you can’t always trust the police to always respond appropriately

in a situation. They are not infallible, and should not be trusted to be more responsible

than a licensed citizen concerning concealed carry on a campus.

Several colleges have added cell phone text alerts and/or emails to warn students

of potential shooter situations, and have trained their campus police with shooter tactical

training, as ACU did earlier this year. But, it has now been shown that these text alerts

are not a reliable way of communicating the danger to all the students, as a class recently

found out at NCU. NCU did not show the wisdom of ACU who did their training while

school was out. Instead, NCU sent a text message warning 5 days beforehand to the

students informing them of the hostage shooter drill that would happen in 5 days. Several

people did not get the message, including the assistant professor whose class was taken

“hostage”. He thought the simulation was real, as I’m sure did the students. In this case,

the message was sent 5 days in advance, but was still not received by everyone. This

shows that such a system can not be relied upon to be completely effective at warning

students.

In conclusion, it is unjust for the government to state that you are liable for your

own personal protection, but then deny you the means to do so. They act as though the

police as your protectors, but then deny any legal obligation to offer personal protection

to any individual. In my opinion, the best way to lower the chance of more such

shootings without infringing on the rights of the citizens is to allow guns on college

campuses by those who are licensed, while increasing the punishment for misuse of one

on campus. This would discourage misuse, while increasing the chances of stopping an

armed assault by a criminal by increasing the amount of trained, armed individuals on

campus (at no cost to the school) and lowering the response time to end an incident.










Bibliography

James H. Noonan and Malissa C. Vavra “Federal Bureau of Investigation – School Violence – Analyses and Results” Oct. 2007. 05 Mar. 2008 <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/schoolviolence/2007/analyses.htm>

PublicRights.org – Police NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT Individual SAFETY 05 Mar. 2008 < http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html>

Answers to the Most Common Arguments Against Concealed Carry on College Campuses 05 Mar. 2008 < http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm>

The Herald Bulletin - Wrongful death trial in BSU student's 2003 shooting to begin today 22 Jan. 2008. 05 Mar. 2008
< http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/archivesearch/local_story_022002107.html>

ACUPD hosts national school shooter tactical training 02 Jan. 2008. 05 Mar. 2008.
< http://www.acu.edu/news/2008/080102_ALERRT.html>

Mock Gunman Drill Terrifies Students, Faculty at North Carolina University 27 Feb. 2008. 05 Mar. 2008 < http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333069,00.html>

I believe that an adult should have total freedom except where it would infringe on another person. I am a socialist libertarian. Total freedom for individuals but a social safety net out of enlightened self interest and nationalized crown corporations for industries where it is to vital to the nation to leave it in the hands of people who only care about short term benefits to the share holders.

Energy for instance is vitally important and all anyone has to do is look at the price of gas to see how well the capitalists are handling it. They have made record profits for 20 years but have not put any money into infrastructure.
If it was not for the companies not building new refineries capable of processing
heavy crude and panicking greedy speculators driving the price up gas would be the same price as before. Also with a nationalized system all those billions go to reducing your taxes not making the rich richer.

We have done everything possible to drive small farms and small business under.
We have also killed most of the North American manufacturing other than niche businesses like Scrapyard. It is ridiculous that an American company should have to compete with a chinese one with no environmental rules ,lower taxes and slave labour in their home market!

I think the rights and well being of an American (or in my case Canadian) citizen should come before that of a foreign multinational.

For me it all comes down to the rights and responsibility of the individual.
Our rights should be respected but at the same time we should be able to take responsibility for ourselves rather than crying to the government to save us.

Taking responsibility for our own personal safety and that of our family is the most basic. I think the original US Constitution was a nearly perfect document for running a country for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the rulers. Almost every single amendment and act since then has been to the advantage of the rich and powerful at the expense of the average citizen.

Now it may seem strange to say that after ranting about how much the free market sucks for 4 paragraphs. However at the time it was written a all the controls on the market were to the benefit of the rich and powerful. At the time they thought a free market would be much better for the average hard working individual and the protestants who came over on the Mayflower had actually made it a part of their religion. Smuggling was an act of religious devotion.
They were as wrong about that though as they were about the world being only 5000 years old.

I want a system of government that makes it possible for an family to run a farm
or a small business to survive. It should allow the individual as much freedom as possible and anytime the government wants to restrict that freedom they should have to prove it necessary and that the measures will actually work.

There needs to be a mechanism in place to stop people from selling out everyones freedom for the illusion of safety. The nightmare of the UK should be a cautionary warning to us.


Sorry about the rant.

Japan has a very different society then us.

Just look at 4chan(wierd).

that's fine as long as they keep their culture to themselves. When they start trying to get our personal weapons away from us, they make themselves the enemy.

actually this is a little grey in context. They strongly oppose our 2nd amendment rights which is more what I was referring to than them wanting to regulate knives. They definitely overlap though, and either one is cardinal sin to me.