www.wboy.com/news/archives/00/1/s13100.asp
This link gives a very abreviated version of the story that was actually aired. From memory:
-One guy had a shotgun and his buddy had a semiauto pistol.
-The two guys who were sled-riding were led back to their dorm at gunpoint after they were accosted for money.
-Threats of murder, assult, and rape were made against some of the students according to witnesses.
A couple students that were interviewed noted the lack of security at the college campus. One thing that came to mind is the lack of responsability for self protection. This isn't to criticize those who went through the ordeal. I am trying to point out the fact that references to a solution refered to lack of security. In one sense, the state law of WV forbids guns w/in 1000ft. of school property....you know, one of those "resonable gun laws". One could argue, since students are not allowed by the state law and school policy the means to defend themselves, that the school and state are responsible for the complete safety of each individual that comes w/in 1000ft. of school property.
CONCLUSION: Even if the state and college provided a police state by providing an armed body guard to hold the hand of each student as he shoots down the hill on his sled, and to walk each one to class and home, shaparone each date, and sleep next to every student, who is to say that criminal activity would not happen and need to be defended against. (ie. An unarmed populace often falls victim to those in authority/power, often resulting in mass murder, various assults, violation of private property and mass rape). I realize that this is taking a scenario to the extreme, but these extreme atrocities are what oftentimes results to whole nations of innocent people. http://jpfo.org/genocide.htm
IMO Lawmakers who pass any type of firarms legislation, are just as guilty as the criminals that directly carry out their deeds against the innocent. Why? I'm glad you asked. Because they are threatening the innocent w/severe punishment (ie. fines, a violation of private property; jail/prison sentences, which place one in harms way w/rapist, etc.), those who merely posses the means to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. It is the law abiding who suffer from gun laws, both at the hands of the criminals as in the story AND the criminals who introduce and pass gun legislation.
Bottom line: ALLLL GUN LAWS ARE UNJUST AND DO NOTHING BUT LEAD TO THE SUFFERING OF THE INNOCENT.
BTW, According to the TV news report, the BGs left the scene w/$4 and change. That's a thief for ya. Dumb as a door knob. "Hooo do ya tink we aughta rob tinite Beuford?
How abouts dose guys on da sled. Dey gotta have some munny." Rob some college students out sledding. Sheeesh!
Campus security SHOULD mean: Every student, staff, or stranger crossing school grounds have the means to defend themselves from criminal dirtbags. No permission needed. If they violate their responsibility or commit a crime. The law should be able to prosecute criminals for criminal activity regardless of weapon used.
Campus security = BG w/gun looking down the end of a .45" tube. SEE jpfo.org/school.htm Nuff said.
robert
-------------
Is the means of self defense a God given right and responsibility, or a legislative priviledge granted to those who pass a test and get permission from those who know better? A:Luke 22:35-38
[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited February 03, 2000).]
This link gives a very abreviated version of the story that was actually aired. From memory:
-One guy had a shotgun and his buddy had a semiauto pistol.
-The two guys who were sled-riding were led back to their dorm at gunpoint after they were accosted for money.
-Threats of murder, assult, and rape were made against some of the students according to witnesses.
A couple students that were interviewed noted the lack of security at the college campus. One thing that came to mind is the lack of responsability for self protection. This isn't to criticize those who went through the ordeal. I am trying to point out the fact that references to a solution refered to lack of security. In one sense, the state law of WV forbids guns w/in 1000ft. of school property....you know, one of those "resonable gun laws". One could argue, since students are not allowed by the state law and school policy the means to defend themselves, that the school and state are responsible for the complete safety of each individual that comes w/in 1000ft. of school property.
CONCLUSION: Even if the state and college provided a police state by providing an armed body guard to hold the hand of each student as he shoots down the hill on his sled, and to walk each one to class and home, shaparone each date, and sleep next to every student, who is to say that criminal activity would not happen and need to be defended against. (ie. An unarmed populace often falls victim to those in authority/power, often resulting in mass murder, various assults, violation of private property and mass rape). I realize that this is taking a scenario to the extreme, but these extreme atrocities are what oftentimes results to whole nations of innocent people. http://jpfo.org/genocide.htm
IMO Lawmakers who pass any type of firarms legislation, are just as guilty as the criminals that directly carry out their deeds against the innocent. Why? I'm glad you asked. Because they are threatening the innocent w/severe punishment (ie. fines, a violation of private property; jail/prison sentences, which place one in harms way w/rapist, etc.), those who merely posses the means to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. It is the law abiding who suffer from gun laws, both at the hands of the criminals as in the story AND the criminals who introduce and pass gun legislation.
Bottom line: ALLLL GUN LAWS ARE UNJUST AND DO NOTHING BUT LEAD TO THE SUFFERING OF THE INNOCENT.
BTW, According to the TV news report, the BGs left the scene w/$4 and change. That's a thief for ya. Dumb as a door knob. "Hooo do ya tink we aughta rob tinite Beuford?
How abouts dose guys on da sled. Dey gotta have some munny." Rob some college students out sledding. Sheeesh!
Campus security SHOULD mean: Every student, staff, or stranger crossing school grounds have the means to defend themselves from criminal dirtbags. No permission needed. If they violate their responsibility or commit a crime. The law should be able to prosecute criminals for criminal activity regardless of weapon used.
Campus security = BG w/gun looking down the end of a .45" tube. SEE jpfo.org/school.htm Nuff said.
robert
-------------
Is the means of self defense a God given right and responsibility, or a legislative priviledge granted to those who pass a test and get permission from those who know better? A:Luke 22:35-38
[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited February 03, 2000).]
In all honesty it didn't matter to me. Man or Women if you were good backup I respected you. If you hid around the corner I would try to teach you and if not forget you. "I had a supervisor walk away when I was (dealing) with two fairly large drunk members of a minority group and one had a knife." He didn't even yell or try to distrace them. IMO he thought I didn't see him so he could hide. "that was a night I left campus (without permission) and brought back a gun" Drunk was one thing but when their friend bails them out and they are a little sobor I felt I would need a chance to live. I broke the law in order to have a better chance to go to class the next day.