Ron

Ask the attacker. The Police seem to think Minto saved a life. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Not inconsistent. The Jews were disarmed by the Govt, and they were rounded up an slaughtered. Do you disagree with any of that? Do you not think that a person who had the ability to fight back would? You think that if you had a gun and you were being lead to your death you would just accept it? Your comparison is flawed. There was not the same level of exterminations in Iraq, and THEY DID fight back. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And yet there are plenty of bombings as well.... Unibomber (3k/23w), OKC (168k/680w), WTC #1 (6k/1042w), The Olympic bombing (2k/111w), So just that list has 179 killed and 1856 wounded. I would bet more have been wounded and killed in bombings than school and mall shootings. Abortion clinic bombings have been 41 in N. America since 1977. Have you tried to get a gun or build a bomb in the US? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Mine are more valid than yours since I know about them. Yours are based on ignorance and the emotion of fear. So even if we both have an emotional aspect... Fear is a stronger emotion than "attachment" and I at least have knowledge about the objects based in training and experience. Very relevant... You are trying to compare a private company policy about an object in a specific set of circumstances to a State law forbidding ownership of an object to anyone. You do know that you can get insurance for a Corvette at 20 right? That is TONS different than a law forbidding an object to anyone. Just admit your example and logic use is faulty and move on. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

A lot. But I have seen the same type jump canopy's too small and date women too young for them. That does not mean the State should make it illegal. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

My opinion is more valid than yours since I actually know about the weapons being discussed. Your opinions are based on ignorance and fear. In this case, you are the whuffo claiming that skydiving is for people with a death wish. Yet the law being discussed is not about age limits... so again, your conclusions are not valid. Also, you might want to re-read your post.... A 20 year old is NOT a teenager. Very relevant since you tried to use a private company policy concerning a small age group and an object to compare to a LAW about ownership of an object to ANYONE. There are already laws about age of ownership. Not the point... the point is that you used a bad example (A private companies policy on risk with an age group and an object) to a LAW about flat out ownership. You do know that the private insurance agency WILL insure a Corvette for a 20 year old right? Just admit your logic was faulty and your example was bad and move along. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nice to know you can't act like an adult. Jump to un-backed conclusions much? This shows your level of maturity. You have no idea about the situation, the targets, nor the range... Yet you claim to know everything. I don't know why I expect any different from you. You have shown yourself time after time to be a small minded person who jumps to conclusions without any data. You have no idea how happy we are to have you and your small minded egotistical type so far away from us. Care to describe your "knowledge" of the range? The target? The situation? Or just continue to claim to know everything and show yourself to be foolish? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Not everyone is so shallow to be worried about what people think about what they wear. That hat is about function, not trying to impress people. If ***** means "legal citizens".... Yep. I am willing to bet that you could not handle it without training. I can make that claim since I have one, have been trained, and have trained others. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Yes, but the problem is with you incorrect conclusion you came up with. Which I already covered and you ignored, "Wanting one can also indicate several other things. Your illogical leap only fits your perception, not reality." You stated, "But the type of personality that wants a Corvette is, apparently, more likely to lead to problems. " Nonsense... I know plenty of 40 year olds with Corvettes, and MY insurance rates on a Vette would be LOWER than my current car based on history, age ect.... (I looked at them last year). Your insurance example has two major flaws: 1. It is a PRIVATE company charging more. There is no LAW that says a 20 year old can't own a Corvette. 2. Your "dangerous" personality argument is really more about inexperience driving than the car. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I would not consider Cho to be an average person. I would not consider anyone that goes on a killing spree to be an average person. Cho got guns to do his evil wishes... McVeigh made a bomb. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

All of his guns pictured are legal. This should really drive you nuts then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vopYDdRSDoA That's me in the front. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Wanting one can also indicate several other things. Your illogical leap only fits your perception, not reality. A 20 year old wants a Vette because he thinks it is much cooler than a Focus. A 20 year old wants a Vette because he thinks it will attract women more than a Focus. A 20 year old wants a Vette because he thinks his friends will think he is cooler for owning it over the Focus. Personal anecdote does not equal data. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Might want to check again. Most offices do not allow you to carry at work. Also, if you are talking about the guy that set fire to the house... you might want to outlaw matches. You don't seem to be trying to get anything. You asked for evidence of a person with a gun stopping a killing spree and I provided plenty of examples....You didn't accept them. You tried to cite examples like VA tech to prove your point, while ignoring that VA tech had rules that didn't allow a CHL person to be there with a firearm. You don't really seem to be trying to get anything. And like it or not, guns don't kill, they are only tools. No, POLICE said he planned on going to the Jr, High next. He killed his mother and then drove to the school. He was trying to leave the school and he still had loaded weapons and extra bullets. Maybe the dumbest thing ever written. If Myrick had walked up to the kid empty handed he most likely would have been killed just like the kids Mom and the two others he killed, or shot and wounded like the seven others. And while he didn't have to fire... IT WAS STILL A GUN that stopped him. I never said you had to kill the attacker, or even shoot him. You just have to be ABLE to stop the attack and in this case Myrick did stop it... WITH A GUN. Good god... It is clear you just are not listening, and defiantly not trying to get anything. Yelling would not work.... I can't believe you can't grasp the simple fact that a crazy gunman is not going to stop when you ask. And I and others are former military. That makes us more than the average Joe also. So your point is invalid. I have, you have shown you are just going to make up BS like yelling stop will work. Because criminals don't know who is carrying. Simple really. And you have admitted that a criminal is not going to attack in a place he knows could have armed people. It is pretty clear that you are not willing to listen. In each of the limited examples I have provided people with GUNS stopped attacks. The fact they didn't have to shoot or kill just proves the GUN did it and not tactics or lethal force. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So you did agree with the Dred Scott ruling? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You said, "So maybe you tell us when will it work?" And I did. In fact I didn't tell you when it might work... We have tried that before. I showed you where it DID work. Your best examples of when it didn't work were in places where citizens were not allowed to be armed. So maybe you should show some examples where citizens were allowed to be armed and it didn't work. Please provide the data to back up your statements. Ding, ding, ding. "obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range".... But earlier you said, "Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes." So which is it? You are arguing against yourself, your arguments are disjointed and do not follow a logical path. Nonsense. Those places that people are allowed to carry will be safer than they are now... By your own admission. I have no issue with citizens who have gone through the process carrying anywhere they want. Now.... Do you think there is anywhere in public that citizens should be allowed to carry a gun? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Maybe you should google Assistant Principal Joel Myrick? Maybe you should read up on James Strand, Edinboro, Pennsylvania Maybe you should check out who stopped Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage in 2002? If you can't see the obvious error in your logic there..... I don't know what to tell you. I have a CHL... And I don't take it places that BY LAW I am not allowed to take it. That law clearly didn't stop Cho..... But it has stopped guys with CHL's. Seriously.... I can't even fathom how your logic is working there. Yep, MP's only... And you see what happened when the MP's showed up right? No... My point is that as long as rules are in place to prevent legal citizens from carrying, most times they will follow the law and not carry. But that does not stop a criminal. So those places are ripe targets for nutjobs. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all prove you wrong. Making things even more equal. Voting is the best way... But what if your Govt ignores your vote? Never forget that the US was born from an armed revolution against a tyrannical Govt. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" George Washington "You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." Machiavelli "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

There was plenty of information... Kallend just ignores it and throws crap. Of course, you added value to the conversation didn't you "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If someone came to take your children from you, or came to take you to a camp... You don't think the outcome would be different if you were armed vs unarmed? History has shown the people who are armed at least have the chance to fight back and that many times they win. Happens all the time. Just look at all the people who can only side with a political party and blame only the other parties for the problems. Problem is that gun laws on hurt those that are inclined to follow the law. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop having a gun just because they are illegal. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sure, show where IN THE RULES it is disallowed. Or are just making up rules right now? Might want to read this BTW: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Its legal.... So he has the right "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If the test can't prove he was DUI... then he should be fine. But the above seems to indicate that they were able to prove it. While I don't care if people use pot... I do care f people use pot and drive. A person DUI due to pot should face the SAME punishment as a DUI with other substances. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Yes, you trying to call others on it is ironic as hell. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I stopped believing him here: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... All situations where the US's clearly superior troops have been killed by a farmer with a gun. The Russians were unable to beat a bunch of farmers, and the US is not exactly winning either. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334