The 2006 Hero of the Year

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scholar_Warrior, May 13, 2007.

  1. Scholar_Warrior

    Scholar_Warrior Be Love Now

    from Neal's Nuze

    THE 2006 HERO OF THE YEAR

    [​IMG]Jeff May is an Ojibwe Indian from Minnesota. Readers Digest named him the 2006 Hero of the Year. I had never heard of Jeff May until I opened a letter from a listener yesterday. My guess is that you have never heard of him either.

    Here's the story.

    About two years ago a young male wearing a black trench coat walked into the Red Lake Senior High School in northern Minnesota. He was carrying not one, not two, but three guns. He started shooting and killed eight people, injuring seven more .... then Jeff May took action. A teacher? No ... Jeff May was a sophomore at Red Lack. Sixteen years old, perhaps 15. (Can't nail down his exact age). Jeff was doing algebra problems with a pencil when the shooter entered his classroom. After May saw what was happening he rushed the gunman ... armed only with the pencil. He stabbed the shooter in the side with the pencil and the two started struggling. Jeff May was shot in the face. By this time the police showed up, and the shooter killed himself. Jeff May's teacher, Missy Dodds, says he saved many of his classmates lives, and hers. Other news reports put the number of lives that Jeff May saved at a dozen. After the incident he spent a lengthy time in physical, occupational and speech therapy for his injuries.

    Was Jeff May a hot-shot student athlete at Red Lake? Not known. His pictures show him to be a slightly pudgy teenager. What you can't see in those pictures is a heart the size of a basketball.

    Can you folks imagine this? Nothing like this could ever happen, right? Someone walks into a classroom blazing away with multiple guns, and a student -- a 16-year-old -- rushes him with a pencil? No .. this just has to be a work of Hollywood fiction. No teenager could possibly ever show such bravery.

    But it's not, and he did.

    What happened here? Hard to say. Maybe Jeff May was raised in a culture where self-defense was praised rather than condemned. Maybe he was raised in a home with a strong father. Maybe his Ojimwe culture celebrates individualism.

    Another question: Why haven't I heard of Jeff May before yesterday? We certainly get all of the gory details from every school shooting, and this Red Lake shooting in 2005 had been the worst since Columbine. Why wasn't Jeff May celebrated across this country? is it possible because his actions are politically incorrect in our current culture of government dependency?

    And why is the idea of self-defense so unpopular with the left? Why, when someone acts to save their own life and the lives of others, do we invariably get some public official or politician warning us about the dangers of "taking the law into our own hands?"

    Remember, please, the leftist war against individualism. Self-defense is a uniquely individualist pursuit. There you are, an individual person, using deadly force to protect ... yourself! Don't you know that in this age of big-government that this is a job for the police!

    About 20 legislators in South Carolina have now introduced legislation that would allow anyone in South Carolina with a concealed weapons permit to carry that weapon on a government school or college campus. The only other state in the union with such a law is Utah. Get this passed in South Carolina and you will make South Carolina school grounds among the safest in the nation. Liberals, however, are going to scream bloody murder. They will fight tooth and nail to defeat this measure .. and my guess is that they'll probably succeed.

    Why is it that liberals hate the idea of an armed citizen so much? They can read the statistics just like we can. If they care to research the matter, they will learn that people with concealed carry permits simply do not commit gun crimes! So, the liberal opposition to citizens carrying guns simply cannot be excused over fears for general public safety. The facts simply don't bear those fears out. There has to be something else at work here, and there is. Liberals don't like armed individuals because they are .... individuals. Carrying a gun for self-defense is, as I said, a uniquely individual pursuit. It's a loud statement by an individual citizen saying "I own my life, and I have the right to take deadly action to defend it." The liberal believes that your life belongs to government, and that it is the government's job to protect it.

    Thank God Jeff May didn't buy it

     
  2. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Isn't it ironic that a 15 yr old had the balls to stop a person wielding three guns before killing dozens of people, yet at Virginia Tech, there was nobody with the balls to attempt to stop Cho Seung-Hui before killing 33 people?
     
  3. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    people tend to cower when their lives are threatened, it's pretty natural, and in the short term, makes the most evolutionary sense. we evolved from small furry animals, and it shows.
    however, every now and then if you get a small furry animal backed into a corner, it becomes the most viscious, determined, ball of anger you'll ever have the displeasure of running into. i think that's what happened here.
     
  4. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    First of all, evolution is an unproven theory, much like creationism is an unproven theory as well. It's not a proven fact that man evolved from apes and was at one time dragging his knuckles on the floor of the jungle with some unknown need to be where he is today. This theory has been disproven time and time again as evidence of older, technologically advanced civilizations have been unearthed, proving mankind to be much older than we originally believed. I can guarantee you that the high elitists (as the Darwin familiy was) don't see themselves as having evolved from animals. This is simply what is sold to the masses, along with the theory of creationism, where you're expected to believe either one or the other unproven theory as part of some dialectical scheme.

    But I digress.

    Frankly, it's not natural for someone to cower when their fellow man is being murdered in front of them, unless they have had all their survival instinct conditioned out of them, as is the case with the average feminized, demasculinized male, who is a product of extensive media and societal conditioning.
     
  5. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Bullshit! How many armed assaults have you responded to, or prevented.
     
  6. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Obviously none, because I have never been in that situation. But I can guarantee that if I saw people getting shot -- knowing I might also be a potential victim -- and was close enough to the shooter to act, I certainly wouldn't crouch down under a table and beg the shooter not to shoot me.

    As a matter of fact, it's been a rare occurance where nobody acts in such a situation, as was the case at VT. As a matter of fact, I find it to be a little more than odd that there was no attempt by anyone in the hall to stop this kid before killing 33 people.

    If a 15 yr old can stop a person toting 3 guns, why can't 20-somethings stop a person carrying two? Certainly Cho didn't look like somebody that was too big to be tackled to the floor.
     
  7. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    People acted a teacher risk his life to bar the doors to the classroom. Just because no one came out with guns blazing doesn't mean they didn't act.

     
  8. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Those that should have acted more effectively were those that had knowledge before the incident and did nothing to force this student to gain help and assistance, since they were aware that he was unstable. And it wouldn't have taken a firearm to do that.
     
  9. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Jeff May didn't counteract armed violence with a gun, he used a pencil. Don't try to use his heroic act as something to support your belief that guns are a right. If the gunman that entered his classroom had not had a gun to begin with, he would have been easier to overpower. This isn't about liberals vs conservatives...your arguments are more about weak kneed individuals that only feel empowered when they are armed.
     
  10. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Well, owning guns IS a right, so he doesn't have to support that right with any justification because it's granted to him by the Constitution. I think the moral of the story is that you cannot depend on the government for anything -- especially your own protection -- which is contrary to what those who worship the state, who believe the government should own all the weapons they want but the people should own none, believe.

    If you are against guns so much, perhaps you should demand the government disarm as well. This is, of course, unless you see the government as some guardian or good shepherd that exists for your protection, which we can depend on no matter what, when it has been proven time and time again that the government isn't going to save you from anything. What happened at Columbine and Virginia Tech proves this.

    You can say all you want that these shootings would have never happened if it wasn't for guns. But guns are out there whether you like it or not, and gun control legislation isn't going to do squat to rid guns from anybody other than the law-abiding citizens who own them for personal protection. Those who want to obtain a gun to use to commit acts of violence will obtain one whether there is gun control or not, and as a matter of fact, gun control only makes it easier for such people to obtain a gun because the black markets then become flooded with illegal guns. Crime statistics prove that increased gun control coincides with increased gun violence.
     
  11. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Jeff May didn't use a gun to defend his fellow students. He used a pencil. the attacker was the only one with a gun.

    So according to your reasoning we should legalize and support those that attack unarmed citizens.
     
  12. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    I understand that. The moral of the story isn't about guns or no guns. It's about not depending on the government to save you. It's about defending oneself, whether by bare hand or otherwise. The average person has been conditioned into believing that the government is going to save them, when it's usually the heroic and couragous act of the average citizen that makes the difference. Most people would simply cower under a desk and wait for the police to rescue them, but this kid took matters into his own hands and ended up saving a lot of people who would have been killed had the shooter been allowed to continue on his rampage.

    The same thing applies to people being allowed to carry guns for personal protection. Perhaps if people were allowed concealed carry at VT (Virginia is a concealed carry state), they wouldn't have had to rely on the police, who stood around like cowards for two hours before entering the building.
     
  13. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    It has nothing to do with governments or guns, it has more to do with feeling empowered to protect your friends, and feeling that others are actually your friends and not competitors.

    What he did had more to do with love and valuing others than a false sense of courage or owning a gun.
     
  14. Scholar_Warrior

    Scholar_Warrior Be Love Now

    I see both points. But that does not change the fact that the theme of the essay was about empowered individuals.

    It is a fact that when everyone has guns, people are much less likely to commit a violent crime. Statistics have shown this consistently.

    If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws, which at this point in time certainly includes the government, will have guns. Where does that leave you and I?

    Personally, I would prefer a world without firearms, but that is not possible at any time in the foreseeable future. I choose to avoid any violent conflict of any kind, if at all possible. However, I do not want to be the only one at a gun fight with out a gun.

    Certainly, it is not the government's function to tell me whether or not I may have and bear arms. If I had an history of violent crime, I would expect society to treat me differently in regards to firearms, but that is not the case.

    I like to think I would stand up to an agressor, whether I was armed or not. I have studied martial arts for years, after all. But what I would do remains to be seen. I hope to never find out.
     
  15. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Are you going to arm your children when they attend school?
     
  16. Scholar_Warrior

    Scholar_Warrior Be Love Now

    I chose a long time ago not to bring children into this world. I have yet to change my mind. The current debate gives ample reason for my choice.

    Peace
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice