Laws and Gun Laws are only for law abiding people. Criminals don’t care about laws. And Ohio’s gun laws are just about stupid! Lets face it. In Ohio if a law abiding person takes all the classes and training and passes all. He or she can get a permit to carry a concealed hand gun.
Now if a store or business owner puts one of those signs on the door that says No Concealed Weapons. Do you really think a criminal will not bring his or her gun with them anyways? The sign will Only keep good law abiding persons from bringing their concealed weapon into that place of business.
Most of us pass many persons carrying a legal gun everyday and don’t ever know it. That’s because they are law abiding. We most likely pass some criminals carrying a gun without a permit and also will never know it.
But why can’t a good person, a law abiding person. Who takes the time to take the classes and the training. Take his or her legal gun to class with them. No one would ever even know. And that’s the best deterrent to the criminal. Not knowing who is armed.
Did you know that in Ohio, any law abiding person may carry a non-concealed gun at any time. Yes. As long as that person is being law abiding at the time.
Also, if a police officer is off duty. He is subject to all the same laws as any other person. He does not need a permit for a concealed hand gun. But he may not go into a place of business that posts one of the signs that forbids concealed weapons.
Laws are only for the good law abiding people. And the 2nd amendment gives us all the right to keep and bare arms. Well, with rights come responsibilities. Don’t pass laws against guns and gun rights. Pass laws that put penalties for not being responsible.
Vote No on Taxes not guns !
You are assuming that a nut would pay attention to whether students had guns or not. The fellow at NIU seems to have been a "law abiding" student who just went off his meds. He was issued a permit for the handguns, wasn't he? So you are being hopeful that concealed weapons (if carried by more students) would prevent something like what happened at NIU. I say let's try it, and see what happens. But I don't expect anything good to come of it.
Well instead of 5 dead at NIU maybe it would have been 3. If even one life was saved it is worth it!
I like Dead Offenders !
And if there were say three gun accidents per year that would make it not worth it?
Gun accidents? What gun accidents?
I have NOT seen a gun accident in the news for a very long time now.
AND I have Never heard of a gun accident that involved a person that trained and took the classes for his or her permit in Ohio.
So your saying sence gun accidents could happen, that we need to outlaw guns?
Then I think sence car accidents can happen, we need to out law all cars!
When these legal persons train and take all the classes they have that right, even if you don't like it. And they don't have accidents!
So your saying sence gun accidents could happen, that we need to outlaw guns?
Abosultly not. I was just using the logic you used. If having guns could save lifes then it's worth it. If having guns cost lives, then it wouldn't be?
No matter what, criminals will always have guns. So just let the good people that want to also have them, ALONE!
Umm, BEAR arms. . .
Hay, never said I can spell.
How about laws for gun dealers? 90% of the guns used to commit violent crimes come from 10% of the country's gun dealers. In fact the NIU nut and the VT nut bought their guns from the SAME gun dealer. From the AP: "The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University." Coincidence. I think not.
We could heat our home with all the laws on the books already for gun dealers!
Permit me to explain what that really means to the liberal crowd.
Using absurdity and sarcasm, here is what we Americans mean and why gun laws are pointless.
Imagine if I have this mentality:
I am going to go car-jack a car, kidnap the female driver, and use said car to rob a convinence store and kill the clerk.
But I'd better not use a gun, cause using a gun to commit those other crimes is "illegal". HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
No, really, Criminals CARE ABOUT BREAKING THAT ONE LAW BUT NOT THE OTHERS, right?
You are right, Libs. Why do we have laws against car-jacking, kidnapping, robbery and murder? The criminals are going to commit these acts anyway, right. All of those laws must be pointless, also, because crimes are still occurring.
Criminals will do these things. They don't care about the law! So gun laws will not stop them. But if the woman in the car had her gun she could have killed the F&^ker DEAD! But no, you dips want to pass even more laws against guns. Laws will not be respected by criminals. So don't step on my right to a gun, just to try to stop these criminals. It will not work! As Ted Nugent said, I don't like repeat offenders, I like Dead Offenders ! Me Too!
Car-jackings, kidnappings, robberies and murders are not actions taken in defense of your liberty. Carrying a gun, IS.
In addition, the right to keep and bear arms has been AFFIRMED in the US Constitution, which is the law of the land. Not so with car-jackings, kidnappings, robberies and murders!
All of those laws must be pointless, also, because crimes are still occurring.
Apples and oranges. Kidnapping, robbery, and murder are flat out crimes. Owning a gun is not.
Putting laws against owning guns because they are sometimes used in crimes is like making laws against having children because sometimes people abuse their kids.
You are assuming that a nut would pay attention to whether students had guns or not.
Which would explain all those attacks at gun clubs, shooting ranges, police stations and, ah, other places...
Look, what this killer wanted was unarmed victims. It's what all killers like him want. Consider the attempted terrorist activity at that Church in Colorado. An armed member of the parish shot would be killer and stopped him.
The vast majority of self-defense incidents involving firearms are never reported. The victim shows that he's armed and the criminal runs away. The victim lets him escape. Just try explaining that incident to the TPD and watch what happens next. For that matter, the Lima police would probably shoot you out of hand.
That "armed member of the parish" was there in the capacity of a security guard. I believe she was also an off duty sheriff/police officer but I wouldn't swear to it. That makes her, in my eyes, somewhat different then the average parishoner
Why a church would need an armed security guard and why a parishoner would enter into a place of worship and kill people.
Maybe the issue is not the weapons, but us.
From OhioKat: That "armed member of the parish" was there in the capacity of a security guard. I believe she was also an off duty sheriff/police officer but I wouldn't swear to it. That makes her, in my eyes, somewhat different then the average parishioner
Jeanne Assam was listed as a staff member as well as an undercover security guard after the shooting. I suspect that prior to that she was just a part of the congregation. Jeanne retired from the police force some years prior to the shooting.
Your perception serves to illustrate the problem with law enforcement officers and official personnel in general. These people are not inherently any better or worse than the rest of the populace, yet people like you are willing and eager to hold them in the highest esteem, grant them absolute authority over the rest of us as well as give them immunity to the law of the land. This attitude of yours is the way women in Lima, Ohio get sexually abused and killed by police without repercussions.
While it is certainly true that Jeanne Assam acted heroically and saved any number of lives by shooting a would-be terrorist, her past does not excuse the rest of us from undertaking the same task: Extermination of a murdering terrorist.
Ahh but what you suspect doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. You can "suspect" anything to make it fit your view.
The fact is the church says she was there as a security precaution and there is no reason to believe they are lying about that.
I also never said she was better, I said she was different.
Please do not try to tell me what I think about sexual abuse or police shootings. You are not me so you have no clue what I think. My opinions on the Lima mother raising her children in a crackhouse are just that. I never said the cop was justified, although to be quite honest based on the circumstances yes, I was more inclined to think he may have been. I was reserving judgement for after the investigation.
I was horrified that a mother would think a crack house was an appropriate place for children.
That you or any poster here would think that they "know" anyone on this board by a few paragraphs is laughable.
... about those stupid fucking signs:
Those notices no longer carry legal punishments for disobeying them. The proprietor can still demand that you LEAVE if he detects that you've disobeyed his stupid fucking sign ... BUT you cannot be arrested and charged for disobeying it. That was recently addressed and determined in an Ohio court.
So I'm basically telling people to remain carrying and to ignore those stupid fucking signs.
You see, as far as I'm concerned, the signs may as well say "NO BLACK PEOPLE", and they should invoke the same OUTRAGE. When you start trying to stop people from engaging in their Constitutionally-recognized rights that don't involve you at all, then you've lost sight of the tolerance that makes liberty work in America. A person should be free to arm himself as he sees fit, and to go out into the public where he may defend himself if the need arises. If you don't fucking like that, then don't open your shop to the public, chum.
We've gotten horribly lost when it comes to recognizing civil rights in America. Gun-free zones. "Free Speech" zones. No-fly lists. We're fucking LOST.
You are so correct !
...to refuse to sell you anything if you go to the cash-register after he has asked you to leave, and you refuse?
... he's within his rights. But then your refusal to leave would only constitute trespassing, and if the police have to show up to get you to leave, it may or may not lead to an arrest on that basis.
But those dire warnings of punishment on those stupid fucking signs? Sorry, those were tossed out in an Ohio court. There is no actual legal punishment for disobeying those signs. And if you have CONCEALED carry going on, how the heck is the proprietor even going to find out?
What most people don't know, and don't take the time to find out is that gun dealers in the US can refuse service to anyone and are held harmless. So, OSEB, if I have an FFL and a retail store, I can refuse service to anyone or any number of people and need not give a reason. Think about that a minute.
Just wondering about the labeling of a person who picks up a weapon to settle a score or is disgruntled about something and the term, terrorist, is used to describe the person.
The person in this case seemed to have some greivance with a pastor at the mega church.
By all accounts the person was upset but a terrorist, in the classical sense of the word, ?
As I read some of these comments you can just tell which are from woman.
Woman are voting for Hillary Clinton, just because she is a woman. How stupid. Everyone should vote for the person! The person you think is the best for the job at this time. But alot of woman just vote for this stupid evil bitch, just because she is a bitch. How stupid!
And in some of these comments you can see "read" that it must be a stupid woman!
Not to say some fagot men are way out there too!
But, Woman are just Brokin !
Wow, we've got ourselves a real smooth talker.
The truth is evident, Toledo++, that one of us can expertly field strip a 1911 and fail to eloquently explain the difference between a run on sentence and a run down pick up truck, a fact that was not lost on our founding fathers despite their lack of hardware, so to speak.
I will note, however, that the Bill Of Rights was written so as to unequivocally convey its meaning to everyone who cares to read it; In fact, I consider the Bill Of Rights to be the epitome of clarity. The trouble is, I'm a minority.
So, Toledo++, which group do you fall into?