Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you don't support Thompson now, you will after you read this

From:
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663

ABCRadio - Fred Thompson Report

April 19, 2007
Signs of Intelligence?

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
If he didn't have my vote before, he sure as hell has it now!
 

·
Tactical Statistician
Joined
·
13,595 Posts
Friends of Fred Thompson Update rec'd via e-mail said:
Fred08.com
Fred on the U.N.'s position on individual ownership of guns:

Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, "It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ," and that this right is so primary, that it ca nnot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth."

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren't so perverse.

Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, a nd enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries' citizens' possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,959 Posts
VOLGRAD said:
Friends of Fred Thompson Update rec'd via e-mail said:
Fred08.com
Fred on the U.N.'s position on individual ownership of guns:

Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, "It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ," and that this right is so primary, that it ca nnot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth."

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren't so perverse.

Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, a nd enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries' citizens' possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it.
+1, 000, 000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
I agree, well written.

One thing bothers me...(not that this writer is, just most really see it this way)

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Burns my AZZ. :-k recognize.. GRANT :shock: :censored: :censored: :censored: [-X :censored: :bsflag:

Good grief Charlie Brown..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
I was watching the movie "Blood Diamond" and noted to my wife, "you notice it's only those without guns getting butchered". She wasn''t happy to hear that. But hey, it's the reality.
:twisted:
 

·
Tactical Statistician
Joined
·
13,595 Posts
Had an interesting conversation with my child's pre-K teacher today. She pulled in behind me at school and saw my Fred sticker. She asked if I was voting for him just because he was from TN. We got into a conversation which eventually turned into a 2a discussion. I expected she would put up some kind of fuss (she is my nearly my mom's age and is a typical sweet little teacher type). She agreed with every point I made and stated her husband had been the victim of an armed robbery and if he hadn't had a gun on him he would have been killed. She went on to say, "He has done more with his life than those guys would ever have done." I didn't ask, but from her tone it seems her husband must have "liberated" their souls from their bodies. I might see if I can dig any deeper without being rude or too personal. Curious what the back story is there. She stated more people should carry guns. It was a great way to start my day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
MrMorden said:
Fred's a nice guy, but my money and vote goes to Ron Paul, the only candidate that is pro-freedom on all issues, all the time, and never wavers.
Agree. Although he will not win the nomination I still plan on voting for him.

As to what I will do in the general election ... no clue.
 

·
Tactical Statistician
Joined
·
13,595 Posts
I completely respect everyone's right to vote for whomever best matches their political views. That being said, I think it sucks that all the votes for Ron Paul and several of the other Republican candidates, that most all of us freely acknowledge are not electable, might be the deciding factor between Rudy and Fred, or Rudy and Mike, or Rudy and Mitt, or whomever you think might actually have a shot at getting the nod. It has been said on this site several times, "What if it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary?" It might just happen folks. That is all I am saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
I support Fred the most with Ron Paul being my second most preferred candidate. I'm starting to wonder if he's not as fringe as people make him seem. His raising of 4+million certainly made many take notice. I do wish I didn't have to choose between Fred and Ron Paul.

As for Rudy v Hillary, I probably would vote for the Libertarian candidate and hope enough would just to show both sides our discontent with those manufactured choices, but I might vote for Rudy just to ensure Hillary doesn't get in.
 

·
Tactical Statistician
Joined
·
13,595 Posts
Another reason to believe Fred is pro 2a ...

I was reading a thread on SigForum and one of the big marketing gurus from Sig, Paul Erhardt, has left Sig to go work on Fred's campaign staff. Figure that has to be a positive, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Ron Paul is my man. As important as i think the 2A is, it's not the only issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
pyromaster said:
As for Rudy v Hillary, I probably would vote for the Libertarian candidate and hope enough would just to show both sides our discontent with those manufactured choices, but I might vote for Rudy just to ensure Hillary doesn't get in.
In the event that it does end up being Rudy vs Hillary (and at this time it looks like it will,) your vote for a Libertarian candidate will just about guarantee a Hillary presidency.

There will be virtually no democrats voting third party, but there will probably be a lot of republicans voting third party. This will dilute the republican vote and elect a democrat.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
mabar said:
pyromaster said:
As for Rudy v Hillary, I probably would vote for the Libertarian candidate and hope enough would just to show both sides our discontent with those manufactured choices, but I might vote for Rudy just to ensure Hillary doesn't get in.
In the event that it does end up being Rudy vs Hillary (and at this time it looks like it will,) your vote for a Libertarian candidate will just about guarantee a Hillary presidency.

There will be virtually no democrats voting third party, but there will probably be a lot of republicans voting third party. This will dilute the republican vote and elect a democrat.

Tom
it's this kind of thinking that messes up the system in my opinion. if people voted their conscious, instead of trying to play numbers games, we might just break out of this 2 party system with 1 real set of values deadlock. also, take a look at "hacking democracy" if you want to wonder how legit republican vs. democrat polls are at all.

i'll sleep just fine at night if i vote for a libertarian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
phaed said:
it's this kind of thinking that messes up the system in my opinion. if people voted their conscious, instead of trying to play numbers games, we might just break out of this 2 party system with 1 real set of values deadlock. also, take a look at "hacking democracy" if you want to wonder how legit republican vs. democrat polls are at all.

i'll sleep just fine at night if i vote for a libertarian.
Then don't complain when a ultra-liberal, gun grabbing democrat (Hillary) wins the presidency.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top