[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 9:14:33 AM
Remote Name: 188.8.131.52
Jasper, I, too, think Gore would have acted. Would it have been as strong or as effective as George Bush? Nope, not be a long shot.
And I think that the Terrorists are "taking heart" by the speeches of the now 10 Dem candidates out there running for president. I think they see it as a "weakness" and something they think is as a change in our "resolve" to go after the terrorists. And I think if one of them does "win" in 2004--I think they would be correct. For one, if one of them wins---there will be 2 years of talk against the "WAR on Terrorism" and it will embolden them to strike again. They would have EVERY reason to think our response would be less than what it would be if it was Bush.
About guns. No, we probably won't ever agree. Do I know people killed by guns. Yes, I do. They are former students of mine--who were engaged in crime or were a victim of crime by some of their "friends".
I strongly disagree about the Constitution. I doubt seriously that people who had just fought for their freedom from an Oppressive GOVERNMENT--that they meant only for the 'militia" or the government or army to have guns. Don't think so.
I go back to HISTORY. In Germany, Hitler talked people into gun control---and then controlled them through fear, violence and emprisonment. He used torture, ovens, etc. Could the people fight back? Could they defend themselves? Could they revolt?
I heard the funniest thing once from Charleston Heston a few years ago after the LA Riots. He said it was purely funny how many of his LIB friends who spoke out loudly about gun control called and asked him to BORROW a gun.
The only people who didn't completely lose their businesses were the one (Koreans mostly) who stayed on top of their building with GUNS and fought off rioters and looters.
I think of France where they literally have MILLIONS of Muslims who are non-citizens who threaten to overthrow the government or to "make the streets run with blood" if the French government involves itself in the war on terrorism. Those folks don't have guns to protect themselves. They would be lambs to the slaughter in that case.
England's crime rate (violent) has increased since they got so strict on guns.
Sorry, just can't go with gun control.
We have literally millions of illegals in the US--many that they don't know who they are or where they are. At least 4,000 Muslims are roaming around that they can't find. These could easily be sleepers.
Sure there are problems with guns but the alternative is not an option.
You may notice that the big mass shootings take place in GUN FREE zones (schools, churches, court houses, the work place) where the shooter can be assured that nobody has a gun to stop them.
I will never forget the woman who watched both parents be shot down and kiled in the restuarant in Texas. She left her gun in her glove compartment. She was an excellent shot. She said she could have shot the guy at least 5 times because of where she was behind a table. The restuarant was a gun free zone. She could have saved a dozen lives if she had had her gun. She had a concealed carry permit and was an excellent shot. Because of the law (she was law abiding) she left the gun in the glove compartment. And because she did--a dozen people died.
Or did you hear of the Israeli woman in the GROCERY store who saw a homocide bomber in the store and pulled out a gun (from her purse) and shot him dead just as he was about to pull the cord and blow up the store?
Or did the media tell you the two guys who "captured" the college shooter in Va. a couple of years ago actually did it because they BOTH had guns they had retrieved from their car?
Or that the first school shooting in Ala. was stopped because the principal went and got his gun from his car?
Or the shooter at the prom in the NE was caught by the janitor with his gun?
So, I think Dems who tout gun control and speak like Doves as the current crop does---to me emboldens the terrorists.