');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });
Oh sure – what could possibly go wrong?
Arm everyone to the teeth! I think we should do everything possible to make sure that everyone has a firearm and knows how to use it. This, of course, includes children. We should begin firearm training when children are old enough to hold a gun, point it, and pull the trigger. I am guessing this would be about the time most children enter kindergarten or Pre K.
I am currently designing a light weight firearm that would be perfect for children. It is a 10 caliber weapon that would seriously hurt someone but probably not kill them; after all children are prone to doing irresponsible things and acting without thinking so we don’t want them carrying a weapon that could kill someone. But, darn it, children should be allowed to protect themselves just like everyone else. Once we implement the firearms for children initiative, I predict that bullying will greatly decline because the 50 pound youngster will be able to protect themselves from the 100 pound bully.
We believe in the second amendment so much that we are considering introducing legislation that would require everyone to purchase and have on their person a firearm from the time they start school to the time they die. Until we do this; well, you never know when someone would need a firearm and not have it with them. We strongly believe in the adage of “It is better to have a firearm and not need it then to need a firearm and not have it”. Our motto is “Firearms for everyone” and don’t forget to help the poor by donating unused weapons to them; after all they deserve to protect themselves too.
I don’t know who is more ignorant. Carl Hiaasen or the woman named Jess in the above comment. Anti-Gun lobbyists seem to be born without common sense, logic or a basic understanding of human nature. (And as Jess’s comment demonstrates, a propensity for the use of sarcasm as a substitute for facts)
The poor excuses for logic presented by both Hiaasen and Jess ignore the issue entirely. They make assumptions that are ridiculous. Are they both seriously proposing that a psychopathic killer is actually concerned with the legality of carrying or using a weapon? (P.S. Carl and Jess, Weapons can be knives, clubs and explosives, etc. too!) I don’t think the murderer would be a legal Concealed Carry Permit Holder anyway, and therefore the law doesn’t make his crime any more “Legal” This law applies to Legal CCW holders only. Statistically, they are amoong the most law abiding demographic in the United States. Also, the likelihood of a Rampage at the State House will be greatly reduced. The FBI and any Honest Police Chief will tell you that criminals avoid situations where their intended victims may have the means to resist, or fight back. A psycho can no longer enter the Florida State House with the comfort and confidence that they will be the only people with weapons. A psychopath bent on killing will choose a setting where guns are banned (a Gun Free Zone) and the potential for resistance is low. Currently, only law abiding citizens obey the law requiring them to not carry firearms in those areas. Criminals really could care less what the law compels them to do. Do you think Timothy McVeigh would have abandoned his plans in Oklahoma City if he had learned that he was violating Federal Law by transporting explosives in an unmarked vehicle? It was the law; Why did he violate it? Do you honestly believe that Klebold and Harris would have walked the halls of Columbine relaxed, and with impunity, if they believed that several teachers may have been waiting in ambush around any given corner? Or maybe the Virginia Tech shooter (Cho) would have abandoned his plans if a friend had told him it was illegal to bring a gun on Campus? (Do you know why there has never been a massacre at a Gun Show or a Shooting Range?)
And Jess, as for your “Arming Kids, the poor” etc. Bull ####… That’s a non sequitur built upon total ignorance.
Some day, if either of you are in a situation where your life is endangered by a criminal, I pray that someone will come to your rescue. If you’re lucky, some law abiding citizen may come to help you. But if your assailants are armed, and that law abiding citizen is not armed, the citizen will probably run to a safe place and call the Police, giving you 15 minutes to contemplate your fate. Assuming, of course, your assailant is kind enough to wait for the Police to arrive.
Actually, I’ve re-read Carl’s column and honestly can’t tell where he stands on the issue.
“Daker” America will destroy itself because of people like YOU!!!!!
Those who have are becoming very restless about the future.
en observation powers. Daker’s comment with you can’t fix stupid is ironic coming from him.
I once asked my 64 yr old mom what she would do if the government tried to take all our guns away. She says she doubts that the gov. could get the military or law enforcement to trample The Constitution and the Bill of Rights like that and she doubts she will ever have to shoot a gov. employee in the face for trying something foolish like that. The only part of her answer I agree with is to aim for the head/face when they come knocking.