Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’

Source

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has introduced a bill in the House that would allow teachers to carry firearms onto public school grounds. Gun-control groups call it an "extremist" bill.

H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and remove all federally created criminal safety zones.

This is a good bill designed to expand the right to carry your firearms for personal protection into areas where they currently are forbidden. All the 1990 law did was provide criminals with perfect places to mass murder innocent people, especially children, because there is no one around that is allowed to carry a weapon. If a criminal wants to kill people he would be far less likely to do so with the fear of being shot but in these gun-free zones that is not something he has to worry about because only someone with sinister intent would violate that law.

Remove these gun-free zones such as schools, public buildings, parks, etc… and keep criminals worried with the thought in their head “I pull out this gun any number of people around could also pull out theirs”. Unless they plan on committing suicide afterwards the likelihood of them actually pulling that gun would drop. Yet the anti-gun crowd does not believe that, somehow they believe that by pretending guns do not exist in certain areas we will all be safer.

Good to see Ron focuses on the "important" stuff! We can deal with the economy and deficit later, let's tick the "gun lovers will vote for me" box before moving on to the unimportant economy...right?

I don't get RP. Sometimes he makes a lot of sense, other times he's just spazzing out.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Good to see Ron focuses on the "important" stuff! We can deal with the economy and deficit later, let's tick the "gun lovers will vote for me" box before moving on to the unimportant economy...right?

I don't get RP. Sometimes he makes a lot of sense, other times he's just spazzing out.

You don't consider keeping children safe "important"? Exactly because of the economy we are seeing increasingly desperate and irrational behavior from people who are under large amounts of stress. Those who break down seek to be heard and it has happened plenty of times before, perhaps they storm a school, hurting, killing or holding children hostage.

There are a number of reasons for this bill and don't bash Ron about the economy or deficit, if anyone ever listened to him in Washington, there is a real good chance we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I don't get RP. Sometimes he makes a lot of sense, other times he's just spazzing out.

Exactly. Dude could smash anyone to pieces economic wise, I don't understand why he won't exploit his one and only advantage.

He needs to write up a bill the forces the govt to sell off Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Amtrak, Banks, etc. These assets are bottomless pits that the govt is dumping billions into. Not only that, but the government is also dumping a ton into its foreign policy as well.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ron has already told the people running the show what his thoughts on the economy are and were, its not his fault they didnt listen to him in the first place.
He can keep screaming it and screaming it TIME AND TIME AGAIN but the Obama Team Inc will still have no part of it.

If we went Pauls way to begin with, we wouldnt be having an Economy Arguement in a Gun Law discussion at this moment. We would actually be focused on the right to carry in public places. Wouldnt that be something?

On Topic-

- I think teachers should have a double barrelled shotgun mounted/bolted underneath their desk point forwards and turning at a 180 degree angle/motion at any time.

Kids are dumb-teachers are wise.

Let the teachers be wise and give them the chance to protect themselves from the already known future threat that will be comming their way.

Not only that, it may just stop some crazy person from entering a school and killing every kid in sight.
He might get one or two, but after that hes going down.
Right now, we have it to where he can just walk in and shoot whoever he wants and walk right out the back door.


Ron is right. Again.

See, told you. Time and Time again.

In light of what happened recently in Norway, I don't think this is unreasonable. Laws do not deter a criminal intent on committing a crime. Criminals are by definition law breakers.

Think of the difference an armed person might have made in stopping the shooters at Columbine High School in Colorado, or Virginia Tech, or so many other places known now by their names and cities. If the shooter had known about the possibility of a security guard, or armed young people, might that have deterred him? That is impossible to say. But it is not impossible to say if there had been one who might have shot back, the scope of this horrific killing spree might have been sharply reduced.

i am getting really sick of that word

'extremist'

here's something 'extreme'

making our children walk through metal detectors before being locked in their school cage everyday

edit to add: Extremism - In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with an authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies.
en.wikipedia.org...
lol

There is something very wrong with America!

So a twitchy high school freshmen can bring their shotguns openly into school? Freedom at last I don't see how that would cause ANY problems

reply to post by the owlbear

So a twitchy high school freshmen can bring their shotguns openly into school? Freedom at last I don't see how that would cause ANY problems

Don't be an arse. Remember Columbine? Twitchy or overly-pushed people will already bring weapons to school, precisely because they don't CARE about such restrictions once they've hit a certain point.

This levels the playing field for others to be equipped to defend themselves. You do would well to actually study this topic somewhat and see that citizens carrying firearms have stopped various crimes before...and people afraid that others might be armed are less likely to get itchy - "An armed society is a polite society".

Unfortunately the socialist left nor the fascist right will pass this bill. They're afraid of freedom, they're afraid of knowledge, and they're afraid of people like me: a civilian sheepdog:

"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours."

"Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land..."

Dr. Paul has the right idea, but right ideas die in leftist minds.

/TOA

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by the owlbear

 

So a twitchy high school freshmen can bring their shotguns openly into school? Freedom at last I don't see how that would cause ANY problems

Don't be an arse. Remember Columbine? Twitchy or overly-pushed people will already bring weapons to school, precisely because they don't CARE about such restrictions once they've hit a certain point.

This levels the playing field for others to be equipped to defend themselves. You do would well to actually study this topic somewhat and see that citizens carrying firearms have stopped various crimes before...and people afraid that others might be armed are less likely to get itchy - "An armed society is a polite society".

edit on 8/7/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

How about public events like baseball games. Copious amounts of alcohol and the occasional fight in the stands kinda places. Some tough guy gets punched in the mouth for a lewd comment and reaches for his piece. A couple shots and all the other people who are armed whip theirs out cuz they can. And don't give me that responsible gun owners crap. Idiots come in all flavors. I had a gun collecting neighbor who would try out his new purchases INSIDE his house. A .44 can go through dry wall pretty easy.

Sorry, not being an "arse". I just call it like I see it. I'm actually more concerned FOR the students...if one gets into an argument with his/her teacher and reaches into their bag, what's going to hold back that teacher from turning from Mr. Smith into Mr. Smith & Wesson. And an armed society is not a polite society. Look at the frontier days of the West, lots a gentlemen running around there.

reply to post by the owlbear

How about public events like baseball games. Copious amounts of alcohol and the occasional fight in the stands kinda places. Some tough guy gets punched in the mouth for a lewd comment and reaches for his piece. A couple shots and all the other people who are armed whip theirs out cuz they can. And don't give me that responsible gun owners crap. Idiots come in all flavors. I had a gun collecting neighbor who would try out his new purchases INSIDE his house. A .44 can go through dry wall pretty easy.

Granted, but that's a different situation that doesn't require federal legislation. Any private property owner should be held responsible for providing security sufficient to the needs of their clientele. If a property owner wants to ban weapons on their premises, well and good - then they need to take steps to make sure that no one can sneak in a weapon after they've disarmed the rest of their attendees, as well as provide sufficient security otherwise. However, I think people would be apt to restrain their drinking and aggression if they knew they were surrounded by a possibly-armed crowd.

But specifically back to the example of school shootings, as they are quite well publicized - imagine how many less bodies there would be if some of those "victims" had been armed.

And most simply, it's quite easily verified that crime increases in areas where gun laws are more strict (confirmed in the US as well as blatantly by the UK and Australia), and decreases where more of the populace is armed. Criminals are simply more likely to commit crime when there is less risk of interruption to their crime or harm to the themselves.

Sorry, not being an "arse". I just call it like I see it. I'm actually more concerned FOR the students...if one gets into an argument with his/her teacher and reaches into their bag, what's going to hold back that teacher from turning from Mr. Smith into Mr. Smith & Wesson. And an armed society is not a polite society. Look at the frontier days of the West, lots a gentlemen running around there.

Fair enough, my apologies as I was out of line. As for your example, the teacher (or anyone else involved in like fashion) should also be held accountable under the law for showing due restraint and proper judgement, and dealt with accordingly when they overact.

And finally, as to the old west - bad example. You might actually want to research their murder rates as compared to ours, per-capita figured in. You can do a search on 'old west murder rate' and read quite a few pages, but what we see in our "western" films is slightly overblown. And the gunfight at the OK Corral made national headlines, despite only 4 people being killed. Indeed, a more polite society with an undue reputation.

Originally posted by the owlbear

Sorry, not being an "arse". I just call it like I see it. I'm actually more concerned FOR the students...if one gets into an argument with his/her teacher and reaches into their bag, what's going to hold back that teacher from turning from Mr. Smith into Mr. Smith & Wesson. And an armed society is not a polite society. Look at the frontier days of the West, lots a gentlemen running around there.

Bother to learn history and don't believe the movies. Gunfights like at the O.K. Corral were exceedingly rare. Historians agree that there was only one verifiable "quick draw" gunfight in the old West. It was between Wild Bill Hickok and Davis Tutt in the mid-1860s.

There are three main reasons that the "Wild West" was labeled as such: revisionist left-leaning historians, novels, and movies.

Buffalo Bill claimed to be shot 137 times by Indians. But he later admitted he was shot once. 137 sounded better, especially when he was raking in the dough selling dime novels.

Western-type movies, of course, played a huge part in creating the "Wild West". What makes a better movie: the fact that most people of the West were farmers, or that there were gunfights around every corner?

The most damaging in my view is that revisionist historians like to cant the truth to their agenda. And nobody does it better than anti-gun (anti-freedom) leftists. They liked to use hard data (always good) to support their arguments, but even data can be skewed.

In the 1870s Los Angeles County had a crime rate of a staggering 1240 per 100K people (John Boessenecker, Gold Dust and Gunsmoke (1999) ). Miami in 1985 only had about 33 (Roger D. McGrath, Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes (1985) )! However, in the 1870s a town of over 200 was a metropolis in California. If there is 1 murder in a town of 100, you have a crime rate of 1,000 per 100K. This method is accepted today when we have cities in the millions, but during the mid- to late-19th century, it simply doesn't work. But try to tell that to the anti-liberty crowd, and you get shouted down and called names.

/TOA

reply to post by Praetorius


Yeah, I did embellish a little with the frontier justice thing. I'm glad you're for private businesses to allow for their own decision when it comes to being armed. And I'm actually pro gun rights, but I think there are a few places where, I believe more guns could potentially be a hazard. Like college football stadiums or sports arenas, public schools, and airports. I think anyone should be allowed to buy any kind of conventional weapon if they have the cash.

Cool ya wanna sell me that there Uzi yer packin?
Naturally there is an attitude readjustment that can and would be made in transition to less restrictive laws.....
The switch would not be without its tradgedy or triumphs.......But in the end, the whole mystique of gun possession would not be such a dichotimus issue.
The facts seem to bear out that more gun owners have less crime, than gunless owners do....er did i say that out loud?

reply to post by the owlbear

Yeah, I did embellish a little with the frontier justice thing. I'm glad you're for private businesses to allow for their own decision when it comes to being armed. And I'm actually pro gun rights, but I think there are a few places where, I believe more guns could potentially be a hazard. Like college football stadiums or sports arenas, public schools, and airports. I think anyone should be allowed to buy any kind of conventional weapon if they have the cash.

@embellishment - no worries, everyone does (THANKS, Hollywood...).

I can't actually disagree with you too much on this, honestly. Property rights are definitely key, and this is one of many reasons I disagree with so much federal action - and things like Gun Free Zones being federally mandated limits the rights of people to defend their property or themselves.

Granted, you do give some good examples of places where guns can be a hazard (i.e. *everywhere*), but you also have to consider that laws and restrictions only restrict those willing to follow them - at the expense of disarming only those not planning to do harm anyway. Much better to have property owners responsible for their decisions and enforcement on this, but I feel sorry for any who let a bad apple slip through armed when they haven't taken appropriate internal security measures to protect everyone else from them, now being much easier targets - like...ugh, fine, I'll say it - shooting fish in a barrel.

Take care, friend.