Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[XD40coyote]

Think about all the times we've seen fellow firearms owners who are say "less then responsible" and we think "what horrible or scary representation of the rest of us!" and while we may reach out to teach them some of them are not very welcoming and we know they are going out into the community and will be viewed the same way and we'll all be viewed that way. Think about all of those who are not responsible and their kids get their guns and shoot their friend or themselves or the actual gun owner shoots themself, their kid or their spouse or whatever. Don't you find yourself saying "thank a lot!"

I just think of those who do harm like that as criminals, not gun owners. Unlike the sheeple, I can tell apples from oranges.

[Mtn Jack]

GOOD Job Mel!!! It's your choice!!! Here's an article Jack and I thought you'd
you'd find interesting!!!!
Love Mrs and Mtn Jack



The Children Have Spoken

By

Janalee Tobias

On Monday, June 30, 2003, 1 p.m., the 5th grade class of Miss Erickson, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial: Should guns be allowed in school? So. Jordan Elementary school is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding CCW permit holders taking guns to school.

Each legal team consisted of five brilliant 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury which consisted of twelve 5th graders, half boys, half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified: "me" for the "guns in school" side, and a women from the University of Utah represented "no guns in school." The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial. Rumor has it that he was afraid to go against me , and there may be a warrant out for his arrest.

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

The verdict is in: Children think that the best way to "save the children" is to let honest, law-abiding citizens carry guns for protection.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by Mtn Jack

GOOD Job Mel!!! It's your choice!!! Here's an article Jack and I thought you'd
you'd find interesting!!!!
Love Mrs and Mtn Jack



The Children Have Spoken

By

Janalee Tobias

On Monday, June 30, 2003, 1 p.m., the 5th grade class of Miss Erickson, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial: Should guns be allowed in school? So. Jordan Elementary school is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding CCW permit holders taking guns to school.

Each legal team consisted of five brilliant 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury which consisted of twelve 5th graders, half boys, half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified: "me" for the "guns in school" side, and a women from the University of Utah represented "no guns in school." The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial. Rumor has it that he was afraid to go against me , and there may be a warrant out for his arrest.

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

The verdict is in: Children think that the best way to "save the children" is to let honest, law-abiding citizens carry guns for protection.

OMG I love it! There is hope for the next generation.

[P-11 shooter]

WOW! looks like the kids have more common sense than their parents.

[danp]

This entire thread is a perfect example of how NOT to run a public relations campaign.

Seriously, you OC guys need to rethink your strategy.

SFN, I'm glad you got your permit back, but I hope you realize that you are doing more to harm open-carry in this state than any bad sheriff could ever imagine. Supposedly the goal of open carry is to introduce people to, and get them comfortable with the idea of responsible people carrying firearms. All you are doing is alienating and pissing off the very people you're trying to win over.

You guys need an actual strategy that doesn't involve the idea "I CAN CARRY 18 GUNS TO A PETTING ZOO BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT" if you want to actually accomplish your intended goals.

If your purpose is activism, discretion is the better part of valor.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Mtn Jack

GOOD Job Mel!!! It's your choice!!! Here's an article Jack and I thought you'd
you'd find interesting!!!!
Love Mrs and Mtn Jack



The Children Have Spoken

By

Janalee Tobias

On Monday, June 30, 2003, 1 p.m., the 5th grade class of Miss Erickson, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial: Should guns be allowed in school? So. Jordan Elementary school is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding CCW permit holders taking guns to school.

Each legal team consisted of five brilliant 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury which consisted of twelve 5th graders, half boys, half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified: "me" for the "guns in school" side, and a women from the University of Utah represented "no guns in school." The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial. Rumor has it that he was afraid to go against me , and there may be a warrant out for his arrest.

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

The verdict is in: Children think that the best way to "save the children" is to let honest, law-abiding citizens carry guns for protection.

I'd LOVE a link to the original if you have it.

[shefearsnothing]

dan you have a right to your opinion. Until said incident at the soccer field EVERY encounter I ever had WAS educational AND POSITIVE. I OC for MANY reasons. I don't NEED a reason though and this is EXACTLY what people seem to lose sight of.

We have become a society of people walking on eggshells because we might "offend" someone. Does the press only print those things that may not "offend" someone? Are people posting only those things in the comments that won't "offend" people? Nope and nope. And why? Because freedom of speech is just that. There is no contingency that says you only have freedom of speech as long as you aren't offending anyone. It is the same with our right to bear arms. NO ONE EVER came to speak to me EXCEPT the coach who told me DO NOT CARRY. PERIOD. No one ever asked about my holster, if my gun was loaded etc. Of course it was loaded but that's beside the point. It could have been a realistic looking water pistol for all any of them knew. NO ONE CARED. They were just OFFENDED and decided they were therefore ENTITLED to tell me I did not have the right to bear arms. Perhaps that's enough to make you, personally, roll over and give up your rights and freedoms but it's not for me. Our country has been fought for and defended for centuries and it won't be in vain on my account. If that offends you...well I stand firm in my decision.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I'd LOVE a link to the original if you have it.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Infor...em.asp?ID=3602

[P-11 shooter]

I think all Dan was trying to say is we need to be really carefully about how we're perceived by the general public. There is alot riding on how we act in the near future. We need to think before we act.

[bpvet]

Originally Posted by danp

This entire thread is a perfect example of how NOT to run a public relations campaign.

Seriously, you OC guys need to rethink your strategy.

SFN, I'm glad you got your permit back, but I hope you realize that you are doing more to harm open-carry in this state than any bad sheriff could ever imagine. Supposedly the goal of open carry is to introduce people to, and get them comfortable with the idea of responsible people carrying firearms. All you are doing is alienating and pissing off the very people you're trying to win over.

You guys need an actual strategy that doesn't involve the idea "I CAN CARRY 18 GUNS TO A PETTING ZOO BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT" if you want to actually accomplish your intended goals.

If your purpose is activism, discretion is the better part of valor.

The pot can be over stirred. The decision was judical (just) and affirmed the right. Poke me in the eye some more please.

I'm glad everything turned out right but if I were reading this all from the beginning I very well may be forming a different opinion.