This is a discussion on Interesting - from BBC web site within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Sig229 Half of my Family is from Scotland. Now that Scotland is starting to gain its independence from century's of English bloody ...
There have been several anti's change their mind after a close call with a bad guy. Not that you were an anti. (I reread this post after posting and didn't like the way it sounded, it was never my intent to say you were apposed to guns, sorry) enjoy your newfound security.
The article is quite a departure from normal press. It's a good article and maybe it's indicative that people are starting to see the truth.
One thing that bothered me is that, once again from our own 'campus' police chief saying that students carrying guns in the classroom won't work because they might freeze, make a mistake, etc. (all paraphrased), but what's the alternative, sit there and be shot?
The armed students are there; they know who the bad guy is, he's the one shooting students begging for their life. The campus police have to sort through everything which takes precious time and costs precious lives.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
The article didn't express an editorial bias for or against citizens' or students' right to self-defense, and it wasn't well constructed either. I'm no English teacher, but the article's title suggested that it was focused on the subject of carrying of firearms by students on campus. But then its first half presented pro-gun opinions and examples from both general citizens and a student. Then it only covered the no-guns opinion of a single school security chief as it specifically related to on-campus student carry. The article should have limited itself to a discussion of campus carry or should have broadened to a discussion of firearm carry in the broad public arena and presented both sides from that sphere.
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD
Some of the British press have seen the light on gun bans, they just haven't been able to convince the guvt or the masses (yet). They've had a lot of home grown terror over there in years past, but I wonder if recent events will open some eyes. Can't shoot a suicide bomber, but you sure can plug a failed bomber as he runs away!
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
I hope one day the crazy British will see the light. But as long as most of therm support the Royal family who really do nothing for the county but wast hundreds of millions of pounds in tax payers money each year, I dont know how logical thinking they can possible be!
Primary Carry Gun: Sig Sauer 229~R (.40cal w/ Golden Saber JHP's)
A close friend just got back from a month-long family vacation in Europe. He mentioned that the BBC makes our NPR/PBS sound like a bunch of Young Republicans! So please take WHATEVER the BBC reports with a proverbial grain of salt. The once Proud British Empire is now in perfect Lock (Goose) Step with the New World Order.
There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_orderA pivotal point came with Bush’s 11 September 1990 "Toward a New World Order" speech (full text)to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson, and to FDR at the creation of the UN. Key points picked up in the press were:
- Commitment to U.S. strength, such that it can lead the world toward rule of law, rather than use of force. The Gulf crisis was seen as a reminder that the U.S. must continue to lead, and that military strength does matter, but that the resulting new world order should make military force less important in the future.
- Soviet-American partnership in cooperation toward making the world safe for democracy, making possible the goals of the UN for the first time since its inception. Some countered that this was unlikely, and that ideological tensions would remain, such that the two superpowers could be partners of convenience for specific and limited goals only. The inability of the USSR to project force abroad was another factor in skepticism toward such a partnership.
- Another caveat raised was that the new world order was based not on U.S.-Soviet cooperation, but really on Bush-Gorbachev cooperation, and that the personal diplomacy made the entire concept exceedingly fragile.
- Future cleavages were to be economic, not ideological, with the First and Second world cooperating to contain regional instability in the Third World. Russia could become an ally against economic assaults from Asia, Islamic terrorism, and drugs from Latin America.
- Soviet integration into world economic institutions, such as the G7, and establishment of ties with the European Community.
- Restoration of German sovereignty and Cambodia’s acceptance of the UN Security Council’s peace plan on the day previous to the speech were seen as signs of what to expect in the new world order
- The reemergence of Germany and Japan as members of the great powers, and concomitant reform of the UN Security Council was seen as necessary for great power cooperation and reinvigorated UN leadership
- Europe was seen as taking the lead on building their own world order, while the U.S. was relegated to the sidelines. The rationale for U.S. presence on the continent was vanishing, and the Gulf crisis was seen as incapable of rallying Europe. Instead Europe was discussing the European Community, the CSCE, and relations with the USSR. Gorbachev even proposed an all-European security council to replace the CSCE, in effect superseding the increasingly irrelevant NATO.
- A very few postulated a bi-polar new order of U.S. power and UN moral authority, the first as global policeman, the second as global judge and jury. The order would be collectivist, in which decisions and responsibility would be shared.
I guess he missed the fact that we have folks serving in Iraq, Afganistan, and other places at age 18!"Our officers have a level of life experience which students can't possibly have at the age of 21 or 22."
-The Mist (2007)"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."