- Ed Power
- September 19, 2013 - 03:41
Or, Mr. Wild Rose, an unarmed school teacher in Atlanta with words.
- September 18, 2013 - 21:36
You seem incredulous that one would suggest more people should be armed in order to defend themselves. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In a society where the criminals are armed, anyone with half a working brain cell would think it was a good idea for the law abiding people to be armed in order to defend themselves as well. The police can't be everywhere. And also, thank God that the USA doesn't have anywhere near the gun control that we have here in the peoples democratic republic of Canada. They may stand a chance of being free men thanks to their constitution. Too bad we only have an excuse for a constitution in Canada. Anyway, I wouldn't expect anyone from the leftist, liberal journalist bloc to understand anything about freedom. They know that the government will always look after our best interests. Didn't they always? If you don't think so, just go ask Joe, Adolph, Mao, Barack, Tom and any number of great leaders. We have nothing to fear, do we?
- Colin Burke
- September 18, 2013 - 08:59
What another has the right to use to protect me, I have a right to use to protect myself -- unless I am more important to that other than to me, which must be what government claims for itself if it has more effective ways to protect me than it allows me to have. There is therefore a stronger argument for banning firearms altogether than for allowing citizens less right to have firearms than their governments enjoy.
- Wild Rose
- September 18, 2013 - 07:20
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.