TN moves to allow guns in public buildings.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

Of course, the downside is that a suspect out on bail and appearing before a judge could carry a concealed weapon and shoot the judge, or the witness, or an innocent bystander.

The upside is that since others are armed, he will also most likely be shot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for gun ownership, but I think in certain areas firearms and deadly weapons should be restricted, except for lawmen.

 

Where I live, you can carry guns in public buildings, with the exception of Court houses, Airports and prisons. It seems reasonable to make these few buildings restricted zones.

 

No we won't be able to stop the crimnals. Iagree, this is a step in the right direction.
Faithgirl

 

okay, i'm with you guys.
i just hope everybody who packs will learn to shoot, too.
would you believe two cops with a grudge against each other faced each other down in a 6'x8' room, both using upturned desks as covers, fired at least 80 rounds altogether, without hitting each other ?:laugh: :laugh:

Their precinct commander was so embarrased he actually went on a 2 month leave !!:laugh:

 

Just what a country needs. More guns. Just as no war resolved any issues with guns, so neither will guns change society for the better. Now I have to fear idiotic citizens with guns too.

I served in a war for freedom, not fear, and yet fear is all I see. My service was in vain........never again!

Cheers,

Jim

 

So if one country got rid of all of its weapons of war knowing the other countries will not, Would that make that country safer?

If one country decided today to get rid of all of its weapons, would that country be safe tomorow?

 

Jim lives in a utopian dream world. He thinks that the millenial reign of Christ has alredy started.

 

How do you propose law-abiding, hardworking, honest, taxpaying, peaceful citizens should then defend themselves against vicious, mean, murderous, psychotic, self-centered, criminals ?

The cops aren't always there, and when they do get on the scene, they hide behind their cars, behind trees, take cover, wait for orders, while you are being massacred in your own school, office, or home.

More often than not, the criminal cases your place, knows if you're armed or not, how many people are home, etc.

The ones who don't have their minds made up to hurt anyone who gets in their way while they are robbing the homes or stores or businesses of citizens.

How then will the citizen defend himself ?

 

Using Jim's logic, that guns will not solve any problems. Not even the cops should be armed.

 

This is why your country is not sovereign but ours is. You guys are still subject to the very Crown we chased back across the ocean.

:BangHead: Now if ONLY we had enough men with the same character as they who founded this country, we would easily recover our safety.

In His service;
Jim

 

That is a cheap shot. It is disheartening to see people who claim that they follow the Prince of Peace cheering the expanding scope of gun possession. That is a sad commentary on the state of Christianity in the US. Jim is looking to a higher standard of conduct and of human life. How many of you on this board oppose abortion on the basis of the "sanctity of human life", and yet also advocate a wider legalization of gun possession? Is human life sacred or not?

Tim Reynolds

 

Are you equating a murderous psycho intent on murdering your wife to that of an innocent baby?

Everyone should get a copy of the book, "Take Back Your Neighborhood" and remember the history of the police. Officers are there to assist the citizenry; the citizenry are to be the main core of law and order.

When the lowest dregs of humanity are bent on murdering, citizens have not only the right, but the responsibility of stopping them.

It's not the law abiding citizen that you should fear, it's the criminal. And without an armed populace, you should fear them even more.

 

A law abiding citizen with a gun in Norris Hall would likely have reduced the death toll there substantially. Guns are neutral. They can take innocent life if used wrongly, but used rightly they can also save innocent lives. It all depends on who has the gun. Restrictive gun laws don't stop the wrong people from getting guns, they just make guns a little more expensive and more difficult for such people to get. Someone who is intent on using one wrongly will still find a way to get one. If guns laws have taken away all the guns from the good people, the only possible first line of defense left at that point is gone, and the carnage is free to continue until the police can get there and figure out a way to stop it, or until the nut case decides he's killed enough people. I believe human life is too sacred to allow people like the VT killer to not have anyone around them who can fight back.

 

Human life is sacred. That is exactly why I own guns and believe in your right to own a gun. Because the life of my wife and children are sacred and it is my duty to protect their lifes. Because they are my responsability. If it comes down to having to watch a sacred life be taken and the choice is between the criminal who breaks into my house and my children, I choose to defend my childrens lifes.

To say Jim is looking for a higher standard of conduct. Is to imply that gun owners have a lower standard of conduct. That is unfair and unsuportable. The vast of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Many are good Christian men and women.

You will find a much lower standard of conduct in areas where there is a high consentration of anti-gun people aka liberals. Look at California Los Angeles to be specific and compair it to any city where there is a higher gun ownership. Then we can compair what city has a lower standard of conduct.

I say that the majority citys with higher gun ownership rates have a far higher standard of conduct then citys with lower rates of gun ownership.

And your bringing up abortion proves my point. The same people in general who want to out law guns are the people who are pushing abortion. IN GENERAL the people who want to protect gun rights are agains abortion. Now who has the higher standard of conduct the abortionists or the second amendment crowd?

 

Quite honestly, I'd rather live in Jim's world then the US with it's gun mania.

Regards
Bob

 

Considering who Jim is, yes, I will agree. He doesn't deserve that answer.

I don't read in the Bible where Christ or Paul or Peter or any of the Apostles advocated "sword control" in their time, or told believers not to carry swords in defense of themselves.

Apples and oranges, really. Babies do not deserve to be killed. They have wronged no man. And most of the reasons for abortions is because of "unwanted" pregnancies, which is, to my mind, selfish and just as murderous as the self-centered, self-involved murderers' motives are, if they got pregnant because of promiscuity or things like that.

Those who advocate gun possession are not advocating murder of innocents, but the capability to defend oneself in times when the "cavalry" is unable to get to you on time.

Even if the "cavalry" does get there on time, they don't rush into the building or the house to rescue you. They hide behind the bushes, behind the trees, wait for the swat team, and all that stuff learned in training which primarily is geared to make sure they stay alive, and hopefully rescue the beleaguered as well.

Which is why those who live in accordance with the laws of society, who thankfully still outnumber those who don't, should be allowed the ability to defend themselves against those who do not value human life.

What strikes me as funny in these discussions is that you advocates of gun control are of the mindset that those who are on the other side of the fence really simply want to own guns so they can indiscriminately kill people.

Almost like those who oppose the doctrine of eternal security without understanding it who think that those who preach it are really saying "live anywhich way you want, you're saved by grace anyway". By the way, I'm thinking of my Pentecostal sister here when I said that.