XML Feeds
There will be no campus rampages in Utah
Well, it seems that in Utah, they have a bit of smarts, apparently more so than the rest of the nation. Some students at campuses there are determined not to be victims, and they carry concealed guns to help ensure that they don't die like frightened sheep, huddled under a desk and waiting for death to come to them.
I'm quite willing to predict that there will be no campus shootings in Utah, as long as the concealed carry law there remains in effect. But should some disturbed person try to rampage anyways, it will be stopped within about 5-10 seconds of starting. It doesn't take much longer than that to draw your pistol, acquire your target, and fire a few rounds.
But oh! Some weak-minded individuals get the vapors at the thought of a regular citizen carrying a concealed pistol. He could be sitting right next to them with that gun and they wouldn't even know it! How FREAKY!
Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.
His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.
"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.
"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."
Foolish female. I'm sure she felt very safe before the shootings too, right up until, of course, she wasn't safe. Never mind that she isn't, and wasn't, actually safe, all that matters to her is that she only has to feel like she's safe. This sort of overwhelming feminine desire for security, and self-delusion, is a large part of why we have such security theater today. And security theater is nearly all that can be managed on campus, except for Utah and a couple other states that allow students to participate in their own (non-imaginary) security.
Note also the authoritarian view that the only people who should carry guns are those R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E and mentally competent government 'protectors'.
Here's another quote:
Freshman Monica DeFrancesco initially thought about heading home to her parents' house after the shooting, but decided to stay in her dorm room in Douglas Hall, a 10-minute walk from Cole Hall.
"There's a lot of security," said DeFrancesco, who didn't see the shootings or know anyone involved. "They're checking your bags and your IDs ... I feel very comfortable."
Another emotional feminine embrace of security theater. These sorts of quotes are very easy to find, and its nearly always women making them. However, with the way that the American Male has been feminized, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear indoctrinated males spouting the same foolishness.
Now, I don't know about you, but as a liberty-loving male, I don't feel at all safe when I see heavily armed soldiers standing guard in airports (with no bullets in their guns - or maybe that should be despite no bullets in their guns), or careful inspections of ID cards, or repeated announcements over PA systems about the necessity of keeping watch for, and the reporting of, any suspicious behavior. What does comfort me, is having, strapped to my hip, the reassuring weight and bulk of a hunk of finely machined metal that has a .45 caliber opening at one end. While carrying a .45 loaded with hollow-points doesn't automatically ensure my safety, the pursuit of which is pointless anyways, it does go a long way towards protecting my life, my liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness.
As you might suspect, carrying a .45, or similar, is not particularly comfortable. Nor is it an easy burden to bear, what with the time involved in the appropriate training and practice for proficiency in its use, the cost of the ammunition and training and other associated costs - such as legal fees and licensing, and the mental work of remaining alert and looking for threats and ensuring that the firearm remains secured at all times so that children or the incompetent do not injure themselves or others. However, if this be the cost for liberty, then I am willing to pay it.
You know what to do to stop it, but you don't do it.
From what I've observed since hearing the theory, I'm quite inclined to believe that the evidence seems to support the view that women's suffrage is a bad thing and should be ended. It seems that far too many women have fascist tendencies, which largely stem from the female emotional response of desiring security and protection from dangers, real or perceived. If "The Patriarchy" is no longer providing security and protection for women, then they must find it in "Daddy Government", to the severe detriment of the liberty of the entire country.
Vox says, "Women's suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty or a republic as described in the U.S. Constitution. The two cannot co-exist. One cannot defend freedom on the basis of emotion, as fear always runs to promises of security, however nebulous."
And speaking of the Constitution, he brings up another good point: "Some people think the Founding Fathers had never even considered the thought of allowing women to vote, that it was just a historical oversight on the part of some unconsciously sexist men. I suspect that they knew perfectly well what they were doing, given the obvious connection between the female franchise and the West's continental drift into socialism."
After all, there is good reason why Benito Mussolini wrote the Fascist Manifesto to have, as its very first plank, universal suffrage "with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women".
Now, this isn't a screed against women simply for the sake of it. I would happily support further restrictions on voting that would result in dis-enfranchising myself, perhaps with something along the lines of going back to the old custom of only allowing property owners to vote, on the theory that they have the most vested interests in the election and would therefore act responsibly with their vote. (To clarify, note that the term "property owners" would not include those in the situation where a bank actually owns the property). As I said above, if this be the cost of liberty, then so be it. I will pay it.
02/22/08, 06:46:12 pm, by CYNICAL 
, 169 views, News, Personal, Rants, Government & Politics Send feedback Pingbacks:
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
Previous post: hmmm... I got one of those 'push poll' phone calls this morning