• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Whereas many federal, state and local governing bodies regularly proclaim “gun-free zones” for the ostensible protection of the public, and
Whereas tragic incidents such as Virginia Tech and Columbine have demonstrated beyond doubt the inadequacy of such proclamations to actually protect the public,
Be it resolved: That if any federal, state or local governing body does proclaim a “gun-free zone” at any public facility, then that governing body will be required to fund and provide for the establishment of entry checkpoints, complete with metal detectors, and the hiring and training of full-time screeners to assure the public that these “gun-free zones” are in fact gun free.
Be it further resolved: That if any such governing body is unable or unwilling to provide such security and screening, then those who possess lawful and valid concealed-carry permits will be exempted from the restrictions of these alleged “gun-free zones.”

Dave Petteys, Roxborough Park

READER COMMENTS

I resolve to never read a Petteys post again.

A "gun-free zone" provides the lunatic murderer who wants to do the most possible damage with a convenient shooting gallery where they ducks are not allowed to shoot back. What better place to plan a mass slaughter?

Fell-good liberalism and PC have created an entire component of society who simply won't fight back--victims and dead ducks.

Think.....when the powers that are trying to be, dis-arm the American people like they did the British citizenry (under the guise of protection)then, they can have complete control!!

It is Imperative that American citizens KEEP their guns!! Look at disarmed Europe now!

The European Union controls them like mice!!

A, I'm curious. How do you propose to defend your "freedom" through gun ownership? Nine chances out of ten, the military dictatorship you will face will be internal. That military is a 1/2 trillion dollar machine with nearly unlimited firepower. Our "citizen's army" would be made up of countless types of weapons (.22s, 30-30s, shotguns, etc.) with our ammo dump being places like WalMart.
I am a gun owner, but have always been interested in just how all this would work. You have a general population that doesn't even care enough to vote (so much for supporting our freedom fighting troops) meaning you have to figure out how to get them off the couch long enough to fight, at BEST they have maybe one box of ammo lying around, and above all would have to be willing to point their weapons at people they know (kids, parents, neighbors, etc), those who make up our military.
Now as far as personal protection, we don't have a right to defend ourselves, we have a responsibility. Cops can't be in all places all the time, and so some means and skill at defending ourselves only makes sense. But from your post, and with others I've seen over the years, we seem to believe that gun ownership ensures our freedom. Again, not sure how that would work.

Soldiers already reluctant to point weapons to coerce protesting citizens to move along, will be more reluctant when citizens offer flying lead with their verbal protestations.

It is far easier to herd sheep, Americans should all arm themselves, The criminal is but the lesser threat than the criminal regime that is but one declaration of national emergency away from dictatorship.

The two wings of the Democrat party will never allow the citizens to defend themselves.The coward wing are too fearful to let citizens defend themselves and the US hating wing want Americans to be killed .That is why they are helping the terrorists win the war.

Wow! Holy reality now wants to declare war on our own troops!

An American babbled so hard my head hurts!

A...too silly to comment... read that drivel for yourself.

Nobody is going to take your guns away folks...just don't want them everywhere. Whew, can I take the tin foil off my head now?

Larkspur has a point, but I believe the argument has two sides. Yes, it is very important to be able to defend yourself if you are capable because we all know the police can't protect everyone all the time. But the issue goes deeper than that. Take how our country was founded. Basically a bunch of farmers with shot guns and hunting rifles took on the largest military in the western world at the time and won. Now I'm simplifying the events quite a bit but the point is there. The attitude that prevails in our media and public venues forces a "government knows whats best for you" viewpoint, could cause us to give up our rights and responsibilities for a bit of false security, and could prevent any defense of an armed citizenry against such a dictatorship should we allow one to happen. It is up to those out there who truly understand what it will take to keep our liberty safe and sound. I'm probably going to get flamed here but self defense is really just an added bonus to the 2nd amendment. Its really a safeguard against being ruled unjustly and without our consent.

Falcon,
Excellent points but one thing you do need to remember, the weapons that the farmers were using were really no different than what the Brit Military was using: flintlocks, blackpowder, and lead bullets.
In contrast today, you're talking about a civilian populace that will have several different calipers of weapons (generally two gauges for shotguns), in various forms of action (single shot, double barrel, bolt action, and semi-auto). Our military is basically packing a common weapon: M16s firing a 5.56 MM NATO, and some of the most sophisticated weaponry in history. Even the Iraqi insurgents are better planned out logistically than the US population.
Pick up a copy of the Shooter's Bible sometime, and as you marvel at the diverse number of ammo types out there, bare in mind the logistical nightmare of keeping our "civilian army" armed. In this case, free market diversity will make our weapons nearly pointless. That's why the government will not make it a point to go after your firearms. There is no real threat from them, and they know it.

Join the NRA today.1-877-NRA-2000.

"Gun free zone" ? Hahahahahahahaha. Your kidding right? Has the PUSSIFICATION really gone this far? LOL!

Larkspur... I do not know the answer to your question. I wish I did!!! Your logic is obvious and disturbing. It would be a sad day for American gun owners to have to defend their freedoms with their guns.

Givin all of the talk of World Globalization, you know, "Global economys" Global this, Global that, where do you suppose America will stand in the Global scheme of things?

Who will control the "globalized" world if it does occur? The U.K have had their guns confiscated along with the Australians. They are part of the global EU(European Union) who seems to be controlling every facet of their everyday lives.

When one has no right or power to defend oneself that person has lost their freedom.

Is this just "drivel" or is the USA next??
Will the "North American Union" being discussed, be foisted upon us? If so, will the powers that be, follow the same gun confiscation plan as the EU whether they consider them American pop-guns or not?

Little by little gun owners are being put in a position to defend their constitutional right to bear arms...Why?????? Gun law after gun law has been enacted since 1934.

The "gun free school zones" givin to us by the first Bush in the White House, seventeen years ago have failed miserably.

There have been an additional sixty-seven incidents. That is more than seven times as many, in the past 17 years as in the preceding 225 years.

I would post them here but they are numerous.

The Amish schoolhouse shooting is a prime example.
Apparently psychotics prefer killing zones where no one is likely to shoot back and gun free zones just give the killers complete freedom to choose where, when, and how!

"Gun free zones" should be done away with!

'A' I have to say I agree one hundred percent.

And Larkspur again missed my point. Its not about organizing the citizenry into a standing army. I too am a gun owner and am well aware of the variety of calibers (you should use spellcheck).

Its about the basic right and duty for everyone to fight for his and her freedom. Consider the French resistance in WWII. They had much less in the way of firepower but still made a hell of an impact against the Nazis. Small groups with well thought out plans can and would be the way our 'unorganized' citizenry could stand up to a tyrannical government.
It wouldn't be easy and the price would indeed be high, but wouldn't that price be worth our freedom?

Plus, consider the fact that it would be our own citizen army that would be fighting against us. Probably not a whole lot of them would be willing to fire on thier own families. This fact alone should make the government fear its population. Imagine whole regiments or divisions refusing to follow orders to gun down innocent civilians and turning on the people in power.

About the only thing I agree with Larkspur is the fact that the government isn't afraid of our guns. They're actually more afraid of our ability to think for ourselves, so they work on chipping away at our other basic rights. Eventually someone will pass laws banning guns, opening a door for whatever else they want to take from us next. We all just need to remembe how we got here in the first place and be willing to fight to keep it.

Thanks Falcon....You are spot on!!

One question? What if the armies brought in to qwell rebellion were not American, but part of a 'global" army?

I don't know if the NAU will really happen, or if it is just another scare tactic website from a group of people with some sort of political agenda, but, it never hurts to keep an open mind and a watchful eye.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force you are inevitably ruined."

Patrick Henry

I actually do agree with your points, Falcan (by the way that's remember not remembre--spellcheck last sentence). But you have to smile about the reference to the French Resistance. Even our former glorious governor Owens made fun of the French and their questionable military. We've been making fun of them for the last few years on various things, and here you are (making a great point) using them in a positive light. Very interesting.
You are right. If you read the history of the French Resistance, they were very successful, though certainly not overnight. They were definitely an important factor in the war, which is something too many American's forget. However, let's not forget one other big piece there: the Allies. We can talk resistance all you wish, but the fact is (sadly) we won't be seeing much in way of military support coming our way as the French had. If we fall, we're on our own.
Maybe this is our breakdown here. I don't see a serious threat beyond our borders. I see our threat internally. I see our citizens sitting back and doing nothing very little when concerns pop up. Most won't even take the time to vote, which to me is obscene. In our culture, chances our the mainstream citizens will not see you as resistance fighters, but as terrorists. And you can bet that tyrannical government you are referring to will play that card.
As for an army not pointing their weapons at you? Guess again. During the labor movements, during the civil rights movements, any popular prostests within our borders involved military or its equivalent pointing if not firing their weapons at us, and sometimes firing them (e.g., Kent State, which involved stone throwing vs. exchange of gunfire).
To be honest guys, I think we're really on the same page here. You pointed out that it won't be easy and the price will be high. I'm merely pointing out why that is.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly