Guns on Public Uni Property

[sgdp]

How do you guys feel about gun-bans on public university property?

There's a bill in my state senate that would prohibit these public schools from establishing restrictions on possession of firearms/ammunition. Essentially, anybody on the campuses could open or concealed carry (in accordance with state law), including students and faculty.

Any thoughts?

[ogibillm]

we all know college students make the best decisions. what could possibly go wrong?

[sgdp]

we all know college students make the best decisions. what could possibly go wrong?

Let's play this position: Virginia Tech. NIU. If but one law-abiding gun-toting citizen had been able to return fire, perhaps dozens of lives would have been saved.

Conversely, as you said... I don't trust thousands of college students to have proper training. I might also expect that a minority of gun-carriers could run a non-carrying population. Subconsciously, maybe...?

There are pros and cons. That's why I'm unsure how to feel about it right now.

[ogibillm]

Let's play this position: Virginia Tech. NIU. If but one law-abiding gun-toting citizen had been able to return fire, perhaps dozens of lives would have been saved.

Conversely, as you said... I don't trust thousands of college students to have proper training. I might also expect that a minority of gun-carriers could run a non-carrying population. Subconsciously, maybe...?

There are pros and cons. That's why I'm unsure how to feel about it right now.

i'm not so much worried about the kid that has the permit to conceal and carry...

but suppose that kid - who keeps his handgun in his dorm room closet along with the ammunition - decides not to carry because he's going out to celebrate the big football win... and his roommate decides to celebrate too, later, by firing shots into the air... you can see where this is going.

i'll add that i was in a fraternity - and many of the guys, had it been allowed - would have carried. more than one night some of those same guys were in fights with other fraternities... and lets say that nobody's dumb enough to actually draw a gun but it gets flashed - what happens then?

[Jagergeist]

Dumb idea. I hate to think what it would mean for civility and morality in our country if we have to have college students armed. Even including VT and NIU shootings you have a better statistucal chance of getting hit by lightning than being at a school shooter incident. If the psycho gun culture in the US keeps on nurturing mass murderers I could change my mind though.

[sgdp]

Both of your ideas, granted...that is what I was thinking, too.

However, in my state, we have a right to carry concealed. This bill applies only to public educational institutions. So, why should, all of the sudden, the right go away? If you can carry across the sidewalk, why should that change on the campus?

[ogibillm]

Both of your ideas, granted...that is what I was thinking, too.

However, in my state, we have a right to carry concealed. This bill applies only to public educational institutions. So, why should, all of the sudden, the right go away? If you can carry across the sidewalk, why should that change on the campus?

students can't have liquor on most university properties either.

it's just one of those things - like absolute freedom of speech for high schoolers.

some exceptions are made. guns aren't allowed in court houses, legislatures, or city hall... why should they be allowed on university property?

[sgdp]

students can't have liquor on most university properties either.

it's just one of those things - like absolute freedom of speech for high schoolers.

some exceptions are made. guns aren't allowed in court houses, legislatures, or city hall... why should they be allowed on university property?

I imagine the liquor is related to the varying ages. Most of the students are not of legal age. However, 18 here is the age to begin carrying.

Our government buildings are gun-free, but you also have to pass a scanner as you walk in. You can rest assured knowing that you're unarmed, but so is everyone else.

Not so on the campuses.

[ogibillm]

I imagine the liquor is related to the varying ages. Most of the students are not of legal age. However, 18 here is the age to begin carrying.

Our government buildings are gun-free, but you also have to pass a scanner as you walk in. You can rest assured knowing that you're unarmed, but so is everyone else.

Not so on the campuses.

at the university of missouri liquor is not age related. you can't have it on university property period. the only 'exception' is tailgating for football games.

this last year i went to Nebraska for a game and they didn't have that exception.

but you're right about the scanners. honestly i don't know what the answer is, but i will say that i would not feel any safer knowing that anyone around me could be carrying.

[sgdp]

at the university of missouri liquor is not age related. you can't have it on university property period. the only 'exception' is tailgating for football games.

I apologize. That's what I had meant to say. I think the don't want the over 21 crowd drinking in the dorms or around the underage population. I don't think there's any need to have alcohol on campus, really. Then again, I have a bias, because I don't drink anyways.


but you're right about the scanners. honestly i don't know what the answer is, but i will say that i would not feel any safer knowing that anyone around me could be carrying.
this last year i went to Nebraska for a game and they didn't have that exception.

I'm not sure which way I feel, honestly. I'm completely on the fence, and I can see this issue from both sides...

[ogibillm]

I apologize. That's what I had meant to say. I think the don't want the over 21 crowd drinking in the dorms or around the underage population. I don't think there's any need to have alcohol on campus, really. Then again, I have a bias, because I don't drink anyways.



I'm not sure which way I feel, honestly. I'm completely on the fence, and I can see this issue from both sides...

sorry my post got so out of order... :doh:

i'll just say this about it... not too long ago one of the fraternities at MU had a decorative civil war cannon in their front yard - pointing at some apartments across the street.

some guys got drunk, thought they'd fire it (no shot) put too much powder in and blew the thing up sending shrapnel into the apartment building

nobody was killed or even seriously injured, but if someone thought firing off a cannon was a good idea how hard is it to imagine someone firing off a few handgun rounds?

[sgdp]

sorry my post got so out of order... :doh:

i'll just say this about it... not too long ago one of the fraternities at MU had a decorative civil war cannon in their front yard - pointing at some apartments across the street.

some guys got drunk, thought they'd fire it (no shot) put too much powder in and blew the thing up sending shrapnel into the apartment building

nobody was killed or even seriously injured, but if someone thought firing off a cannon was a good idea how hard is it to imagine someone firing off a few handgun rounds?

Ah. That is a good example of the immaturity that is prevalent on campuses.

I see what you mean.

[Grammie]

I'm not sure which way I feel, honestly. I'm completely on the fence, and I can see this issue from both sides...[/quote]

I had given this question quite a bit of thought after the Virginia Tech massacre and came to the conclusion that I not only support the right to carry on campuses but actually would strongly encourage certain members of the university

The demographics of college students today are quite different then it was a generation ago. A substantial part of any campus population today has retired military, retired or active duty police and firemen, retired men and women from all occupations. Following an extensive background check to find any ringers this population would be absolutely ideal to carry, open or concealed, on the campus.

Students in their late teens/early twenties would be banned from buying and owning guns other then for hunting.

Even facing a gunman, such as at Virginia Tech, who has multiple guns with clips could be brought down when they inevitably have to reload. Violent crimes are perceptibly lower in cities/states that have right to carry and home is your castle laws.

[sgtmac_46]

we all know college students make the best decisions. what could possibly go wrong? So all college students are drunken fratboys doing a perpetual drunken 'Jackass' impersonation.........nice. :rolleyes:


sorry my post got so out of order... :doh:

i'll just say this about it... not too long ago one of the fraternities at MU had a decorative civil war cannon in their front yard - pointing at some apartments across the street.

some guys got drunk, thought they'd fire it (no shot) put too much powder in and blew the thing up sending shrapnel into the apartment building

nobody was killed or even seriously injured, but if someone thought firing off a cannon was a good idea how hard is it to imagine someone firing off a few handgun rounds? But wasn't that illegal? Isn't possession of a handgun while intoxicated already illegal? So how is allowing legal, sober possession of a legally armed, and licensed firearm, after CCW training going to encourage ALREADY ILLEGAL possession of a firearm while intoxicated?

ANSWER: IT'S NOT!

Leftism is the notion that individuals are too childish to make their own decisions.....so a bureaucracy must be established to do their thinking and important decision making for them. Liberty is just the opposite.


In the State of Missouri (where we both live) you must be 23 years of age to apply for and be granted a CCW permit........which pretty much negates the notion that 18 year olds are going to be dragging their guns on to campus!

[sgtmac_46]

Dumb idea. I hate to think what it would mean for civility and morality in our country if we have to have college students armed. Even including VT and NIU shootings you have a better statistucal chance of getting hit by lightning than being at a school shooter incident. If the psycho gun culture in the US keeps on nurturing mass murderers I could change my mind though. The 'psycho gun culture' is nurturing mass murderers?! That is the most asinine thread of the week.....perhaps easily the MONTH! What 'Psycho gun culture' is that, exactly?

We've had a 'Gun Culture' for 2 centuries.......school mass-murders are a phenomenon of the last 25 years......what ****ING CULTURE do you think most correlates with that time frame?!

Hint: NOT THE 'GUN CULTURE'!

[birddog1]

Let's play this position: Virginia Tech. NIU. If but one law-abiding gun-toting citizen had been able to return fire, perhaps dozens of lives would have been saved.

Conversely, as you said... I don't trust thousands of college students to have proper training. I might also expect that a minority of gun-carriers could run a non-carrying population. Subconsciously, maybe...?

There are pros and cons. That's why I'm unsure how to feel about it right now.

Let’s face the facts, we can not prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, and we should not punish the law abiding and responsible segment of the population for what a stupid person may do.

If you are worried about negligent discharges on college campuses then make it mandatory for anyone wanting to carry on campus to meet the criteria for most states CCW permits. Have them pass a background check, be 21 years of age or older, and receive a small amount of training and information. Such a program would allow older students and faculty to carry and would most likely weed out the type of "kids" that you are worried about.

CCW holders have statistically proven themselves to be very law abiding and responsible gun owners in most states for well over a decade now. Here are some stats from Texas on crime and concealed carry permit holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf

[birddog1]

Dumb idea. I hate to think what it would mean for civility and morality in our country if we have to have college students armed. Even including VT and NIU shootings you have a better statistucal chance of getting hit by lightning than being at a school shooter incident. If the psycho gun culture in the US keeps on nurturing mass murderers I could change my mind though.

Since gun violence is largely a problem in urban areas maybe we should instead focus on that aspect. After all per capita gun ownership in rural areas many times higher than that or large urban areas yet rural areas have virtually no violent crime when compared to those urban areas. Seems to me there is more wrong with urban culture than there is wrong with "gun culture".

[MrShotShot]

For those of you that have problems with 21 year old college students practicing concealed carry, what about 21 year olds who aren't in college. Does being in college suddenly make one irresponsible now or less responsible than someone of the same age that isn't college educated?

When I was at Ole Miss in the late 80s-early 90s, my fraternity house was an arsenal. Almost every room had a rifle or pistol somewhere. In fact we had the "Friday Afternoon Shooting Club" that met weekly at a nearby gravel pit to wage war on cans and other targets.

[James Juno]

The 'psycho gun culture' is nurturing mass murderers?! That is the most asinine thread of the week.....perhaps easily the MONTH! What 'Psycho gun culture' is that, exactly?

We've had a 'Gun Culture' for 2 centuries.......school mass-murders are a phenomenon of the last 25 years......what ****ING CULTURE do you think most correlates with that time frame?!

Hint: NOT THE 'GUN CULTURE'!

Thanks. I was about to respond to Jager's ridiculous and warped generalizations but you said it better than I could have.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The 'psycho gun culture' is nurturing mass murderers?! That is the most asinine thread of the week.....perhaps easily the MONTH! What 'Psycho gun culture' is that, exactly?

We've had a 'Gun Culture' for 2 centuries.......school mass-murders are a phenomenon of the last 25 years......what ****ING CULTURE do you think most correlates with that time frame?!

Hint: NOT THE 'GUN CULTURE'!

I could be wrong here, but I think I sensed a tinge of sarcasm in the last sentence of jager's post.

[grhayes]

How do you guys feel about gun-bans on public university property?

There's a bill in my state senate that would prohibit these public schools from establishing restrictions on possession of firearms/ammunition. Essentially, anybody on the campuses could open or concealed carry (in accordance with state law), including students and faculty.

Any thoughts?

I think it is stupid. Texas is trying to make it were people can carry them every place.
Besides when I was in high school we could bring guns to school for hunter safety course. We didn't have anyone get shot at school.

[sgdp]

Let’s face the facts, we can not prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, and we should not punish the law abiding and responsible segment of the population for what a stupid person may do.

If you are worried about negligent discharges on college campuses then make it mandatory for anyone wanting to carry on campus to meet the criteria for most states CCW permits. Have them pass a background check, be 21 years of age or older, and receive a small amount of training and information. Such a program would allow older students and faculty to carry and would most likely weed out the type of "kids" that you are worried about.

CCW holders have statistically proven themselves to be very law abiding and responsible gun owners in most states for well over a decade now. Here are some stats from Texas on crime and concealed carry permit holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf

I guess I don't understand why stepping onto the campus should all of the sudden require more than actually purchasing the gun and obtaining a license. It seems like we've already covered all the bases.

Btw, is your name a reference to the Everlys? :)

[sgdp]

For those of you that have problems with 21 year old college students practicing concealed carry, what about 21 year olds who aren't in college. Does being in college suddenly make one irresponsible now or less responsible than someone of the same age that isn't college educated?

When I was at Ole Miss in the late 80s-early 90s, my fraternity house was an arsenal. Almost every room had a rifle or pistol somewhere. In fact we had the "Friday Afternoon Shooting Club" that met weekly at a nearby gravel pit to wage war on cans and other targets.

That's interesting. I wonder if they still have that club. I'll have to ask my bud down there.

[sgdp]

So all college students are drunken fratboys doing a perpetual drunken 'Jackass' impersonation.........nice. :rolleyes:


But wasn't that illegal? Isn't possession of a handgun while intoxicated already illegal? So how is allowing legal, sober possession of a legally armed, and licensed firearm, after CCW training going to encourage ALREADY ILLEGAL possession of a firearm while intoxicated?

ANSWER: IT'S NOT!

Leftism is the notion that individuals are too childish to make their own decisions.....so a bureaucracy must be established to do their thinking and important decision making for them. Liberty is just the opposite.


In the State of Missouri (where we both live) you must be 23 years of age to apply for and be granted a CCW permit........which pretty much negates the notion that 18 year olds are going to be dragging their guns on to campus!

In my state, you can obtain a license and carry at 18. :confused: Granted, I don't think the fact that guns would be allowed would suddenly bring all the immature idiots into the gun shops. I think it only appeals to those who already own a gun or were simply putting it off because it does no good there.

Hope that makes sense.

[birddog1]

I guess I don't understand why stepping onto the campus should all of the sudden require more than actually purchasing the gun and obtaining a license. It seems like we've already covered all the bases.

Btw, is your name a reference to the Everlys? :)

I don't either but I am willing to make some concessions to start moving in that direction.

Nope, I like to train and hunt English Pointers.

[birddog1]

I could be wrong here, but I think I sensed a tinge of sarcasm in the last sentence of jager's post.

Based on his/her past comments on gun control I doubt there is any sarcasm involved.

[PhantomPholly]

How do you guys feel about gun-bans on public university property?

There's a bill in my state senate that would prohibit these public schools from establishing restrictions on possession of firearms/ammunition. Essentially, anybody on the campuses could open or concealed carry (in accordance with state law), including students and faculty.

Any thoughts?

Since it is public property rather than private property, the idea of denying citizens their Constitutional rights is ridiculous. You don't have the right as a school/government official to write a rule overturning the Constitution.

If every student at every University was issued a gun and given gun training their first semester, the crime rate would be far lower.

[sgdp]

I don't either but I am willing to make some concessions to start moving in that direction.

Nope, I like to train and hunt English Pointers.

Aww. Haha. I don't know if you know the usage of it in the song, but...

"Johnny is a joker that's a'tryin' to steal my baby. (He's a bird dog)."

[sgdp]

Since it is public property rather than private property, the idea of denying citizens their Constitutional rights is ridiculous. You don't have the right as a school/government official to write a rule overturning the Constitution.

If every student at every University was issued a gun and given gun training their first semester, the crime rate would be far lower.

But does that open the door for the courtrooms as well? We currently aren't allowed to have any weapons in town halls, courtrooms, etc.

[PhantomPholly]

But does that open the door for the courtrooms as well? We currently aren't allowed to have any weapons in town halls, courtrooms, etc.

In a law enforcement scenario, the court takes responsibility for your safety (while simultaneously discouraging disappointed rape victims from shooting the judge, jury, and perpetrator). Too, you don't want weapons within reach of perps on trial. This is pretty much common sense.

I don't trust a campus cop to write a traffic ticket correctly, let alone protect my safety.

[sgdp]

In a law enforcement scenario, the court takes responsibility for your safety (while simultaneously discouraging disappointed rape victims from shooting the judge, jury, and perpetrator). Too, you don't want weapons within reach of perps on trial. This is pretty much common sense.

I don't trust a campus cop to write a traffic ticket correctly, let alone protect my safety.

A Lieutenant I know from a local town police department is running for chief of the campus police. The guy is more than qualified. The actual patrolmen? Not a clue...

[PhantomPholly]

A Lieutenant I know from a local town police department is running for chief of the campus police. The guy is more than qualified. The actual patrolmen? Not a clue...

Perhaps. But your typical court has dozens of policemen wandering the halls; metal detectors at the door and screeners to insure that MOST dangerous items are removed from people before they get in.

Now, if you want to have that level of security on a campus (and I hope to god that NO ONE does) then I would go along with prohibiting guns. In the mean time, there is no comparison.

[Amallek]

As a college professor I can say that I would have to stop giving anything but straight A's. Students are not ready for that responsibility.

[Libstomper]

SGT Mac is right. If the person is responsible enough to take the classes, submit to the legal requirements for getting their CCW, and pass the background check to get their pistol legally, there is literally nothing to indicate that them having a concealed weapon on campus would increase the likelihood of them or anybody else committing a firearms related crime. In fact, I think that an willing to jump through all of those hoops to get from 'A' to 'B' would actually ENHANCE campus safety, rather than detract from it.

I got my CCW when I was is college. I had military training, NRA-sponsored training, and training from my Dad since I was a little kid. I went to a public university but lived off-campus, and had to keep my gun at home for what seemed like a completely arbitrary reason. I could go to a coffee shop or grocery store with with my pistol, and nobody thought it dangerous, but when I step on campus to go to class or a football game, suddenly I became a danger to everyone around me?

I know there is at least one girl thankful that I normally drove about our college town with my pistol, since I happened by when she was being sexually assaulted on her way back home from an off-campus party and was able to stop the crime by virtue of being armed. Had she been just 500 yards further, I'd have had no sure way of stopping her assailants without being in violation of the law myself. Would I have done it anyway? Of course, but who knows what would have happened to me.

[PhantomPholly]

As a college professor I can say that I would have to stop giving anything but straight A's. Students are not ready for that responsibility.

We send 18 year olds off to fight for our freedom. Alexander the Great went off to conquer the known world at 16.

Kids carried guns to school routinely 100 years ago; it wasn't a problem then. If 18 years olds aren't ready to handle the responsibility of defending themselves, then it speaks poorly of our educational system.

People don't go around shooting people unless they are mentally unbalanced - and those sorts are already carrying guns into your classroom today. With no gun of your own and the rest of your students unarmed, you stand at the mercy of such an individual (and perhaps bear legal liability for any students harmed in such a situation if you, the professor, fail to protect those other students). Perhaps our college professors need training in maintaining an orderly classroom?

Oh, I just noticed - you're another Liberal newbie promoting an anti-gun agenda. Never mind.

[BandNerd04]

As a college professor I can say that I would have to stop giving anything but straight A's. Students are not ready for that responsibility.

And yet, there are those of us in that same age group who are protecting your freedoms as we speak. Take a gander at that immaturity and irresponsiblity!

We're all just waiting to murder someone and play with guns, lemme tell ya'. :rolleyes:

*"us" referring to the age group; I personally am not claiming to be in the military.

Edit: Ha. PhantomPholly beat me to it. :D

[ben41281]

How do you guys feel about gun-bans on public university property?

There's a bill in my state senate that would prohibit these public schools from establishing restrictions on possession of firearms/ammunition. Essentially, anybody on the campuses could open or concealed carry (in accordance with state law), including students and faculty.

Any thoughts?

Sounds like they understand the Second Amendment! That's great! Sounds like a state I might like to move to.

Question. Can anyone tell me, how a "gun free" zone stops criminals hell bent on killing?

Question two. Any anti-gunners, would you like to put a sign out in front of your home that reads "Gun free zone"? Might be like inviting the burglars in your home.

The one thing criminals fear most, AN ARMED VICTOM! A pole conducted in a federal prison, stated that. 1)criminals didn't care about the gun control laws, because they aquired their guns illegaly. 2) they feared running into an armed "intended victom", more than they feared the police.

The old adage, gun laws only affect the law abiding, would seem to apply. If "gun free zones" are supposed to be safer, how come there are so many violent crimes that happen in them. By contrast, there has never been a mass shooting at a gun show! Seems it's not the guns, it would be who has them. If I have a gun, I'm not going to shoot anybody unless my life is in danger. If I have no gun, I can't deffend myself effectively against someone who does.

[ben41281]

i'm not so much worried about the kid that has the permit to conceal and carry...

but suppose that kid - who keeps his handgun in his dorm room closet along with the ammunition - decides not to carry because he's going out to celebrate the big football win... and his roommate decides to celebrate too, later, by firing shots into the air... you can see where this is going.

i'll add that i was in a fraternity - and many of the guys, had it been allowed - would have carried. more than one night some of those same guys were in fights with other fraternities... and lets say that nobody's dumb enough to actually draw a gun but it gets flashed - what happens then?



This is often the argument when concealed carry laws are passed. every time we are told "it will be th wild west!" Today, more than thirty states have shall-issue concealed carry permits. I don't remember hearing about the mass chaos! Can you give me a real example? Sorry, those who take the time to get a carry permit are probably not likely to go and get in a fight for no good reason!

[CaptPops]

Throughout the thread there seems to be an underlying idea that 100% of the students wuld have a CCW weapon or be allowed to carry. If you have to be over 21 and have been trained, the number would be far less. In my state there is only about 2% of the citizens allowed to carry. And in the last twenty years I only know of two CCW holders who had misused their weapon.

[ben41281]

But does that open the door for the courtrooms as well? We currently aren't allowed to have any weapons in town halls, courtrooms, etc.


I would argue YES! Why would you suddenly lose your rights, when you step onto property that your taxes paid for? It would be kind of like saying you have the right ot freedom of religion, but you can't exercise that right in your bedroom. The constitution is very clear, the right of THE PEOPLE to own and bear arms shall not be infringed!

[PhantomPholly]

And yet, there are those of us in that same age group who are protecting your freedoms as we speak. Take a gander at that immaturity and irresponsiblity!

We're all just waiting to murder someone and play with guns, lemme tell ya'. :rolleyes:

*"us" referring to the age group; I personally am not claiming to be in the military.

Edit: Ha. PhantomPholly beat me to it. :D

Thanks for your service!

:flag:

[PhantomPholly]

Throughout the thread there seems to be an underlying idea that 100% of the students wuld have a CCW weapon or be allowed to carry. If you have to be over 21 and have been trained, the number would be far less. In my state there is only about 2% of the citizens allowed to carry. And in the last twenty years I only know of two CCW holders who had misused their weapon.

Only 2%???

Sorry to hear your state has been taken over by Liberals. Nationwide, there are over 200,000,000 hand guns. That's enough for every responsible adult citizen to have more than one.

Really, the idea that only 2% of our adult Citizens are willing to accept the onus of responsible gun ownership is frightening - leaves us ripe for invasion. We need to get that number up to at least 50% pronto.

[BandNerd04]

Thanks for your service!

:flag:

:eek: No, no, no! I'm *not* in any of the services!

Although my family has a long history. And I feel guilty about not being able to join. (Health issues. :frown: I'd never last, anyway.)

[sgdp]

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm meeting with my state senator about it tomorrow. She is a co-author of the bill. :)

[ben41281]

I have a question for all those who want more gun control. How much of your liberty are you willing to surrender, to feal safer? Would you have the government and the criminals, be the only ones with firearms? Please take note, The United Kingdom, is gun free zone. There people killed with guns there! How? The bad guys still get guns! You cannot regulate yourself to a safer place!

[sgtmac_46]

In my state, you can obtain a license and carry at 18. :confused: Granted, I don't think the fact that guns would be allowed would suddenly bring all the immature idiots into the gun shops. I think it only appeals to those who already own a gun or were simply putting it off because it does no good there.

Hope that makes sense. Ultimately, I prefer a society where all citizens are treated like free, sovereign citizens, until any individual illustrates a reason why they, individually, shouldn't be.

[sgtmac_46]

A Lieutenant I know from a local town police department is running for chief of the campus police. The guy is more than qualified. The actual patrolmen? Not a clue... Regardless of the level of training and competence of ANY police department, ultimately their job is NOT to ensure your personal safety. That job is still yours. Their job is to enforce the law, ensure the peace and protect the public in a very general sense, and no obligation is owed (nor could be given, anyway) to any individual.

[sgtmac_46]

As a college professor I can say that I would have to stop giving anything but straight A's. Students are not ready for that responsibility. If a student was going to use a weapon to retaliate against you for giving them a bad grade, what in the hell is stopping them from doing it now?

You think prohibitions against carrying CCW on campus would succeed where prohibitions against homicide would be ineffective? :eh:

And that point illustrates the silliness and irrationality of the gun prohibition thought process.....it makes sense on a visceral level.......we need to make a law that says people can't bring a gun in here.....but what is it we are really trying to prevent? People coming in here with a gun to prevent an act that is already a crime that carries about the maximum sentence than can already be given out.

Making a another, lesser criminal act out of committing that greater act has ZERO logical positive effect in preventing it.

[sgtmac_46]

Throughout the thread there seems to be an underlying idea that 100% of the students wuld have a CCW weapon or be allowed to carry. If you have to be over 21 and have been trained, the number would be far less. In my state there is only about 2% of the citizens allowed to carry. And in the last twenty years I only know of two CCW holders who had misused their weapon. That assumption is necessary on the part of gun prohibitionists, in order to make their (dishonest) point.......more accurately, their modus operandi is to create a strawman out of the idea of the lowest common denominator being armed......in this case a strawman composed entirely of drunken fratboys playing jackass in the front yard with a loaded handgun.

For a gun prohibitionist they don't need to prove that their scenario is any more likely to occur than someone getting struck by lightening.......only that it is 'possible' and that they can 'imagine' it happening.

[HSMaxim]

When I was an FFL, I sold many many guns, long guns and handguns to the local college students.
They were not allowed to possess them on university property, however, it was not my job to make sure that they wouldn't.

If they passed the background check, they left with their gun. I can remember exactly 0 shootings by a university student at our local campus in the past 10 years.

So to those that think those "kids" are not already armed on campus, you are extremely naive, especially after the VT shootings, you really think that more than a few of our college students didn't get up the next day and think "******** on that, I'm not going to let some as**** psycho kill me like a dog in a corner without a fight"?

If a student is of age and no laws prohibit them, they should be allowed to defend themselves with the most effective means available to man, a gun.

Why do liberals seem to poo-poo that there are rapes going on at of schools of higher learning? What is so wrong with allowing a woman to defend herself?

The wild frat boy scenario is just bull, the proof is that if it were true, it would be happening now, since students are already armed, and those that think otherwise are fools.

[sgdp]

Update:

An armed carjacking following a displayed handgun incident took place on a public university's campus last week.

Another campus of the same university had two armed robberies within 20 minutes.

Now, I am meeting with a co-author of the bill, my own state senator, and the original author of the bill. I also attempted to contact the senator whose district includes the original carjacking campus. I have a feeling he is not in support of the bill, but after these two incidents..?

Wow...

[PhantomPholly]

What a coincidence - and I don't believe in coincidences.

[sgdp]

What a coincidence - and I don't believe in coincidences.

The descriptions are lining up. There were three incidents:

Campus 1: Gun Pointed at Person
Suspect: No Description
Campus 1: Next Night, Attempted Armed Carjacking
Suspect: Described as medium-build, black male, hooded sweatshirt, 5'9

A week later...

Campus 2: Two Armed Burglaries Within 20 Minutes *near* the campus
Suspect: Both women described as black man, about 30, hooded sweatshirt, 5'11, 190 lbs., according to police

I don't believe in coincidences either...


The police are refusing to comment on the linking. In fact, for campus 1, an official said there was "No evidence linking the two incidents."

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say this is the same suspect in all the incidents. After the failed carjacking, the guy eventually stole a car or his buddy was driving the one in he which he was seeing driving away.


Man, I bet these kids *really* want a way to protect themselves now... No wonder the information is hardly getting out.


**Just found out there have been bomb threats at campus 2! NICE!

[PhantomPholly]

students can't have liquor on most university properties either.

it's just one of those things - like absolute freedom of speech for high schoolers.

Actually, the Constitution is quite clear that minors are not due all of the rights, privileges, and freedoms that adults are.

The foolish notion that has taken root in our society that children are just "little adults" is a recent and horrifically flawed theory.

some exceptions are made. guns aren't allowed in court houses, legislatures, or city hall... why should they be allowed on university property?

I discussed this in another post - in those places you mention, there are a large number of law enforcement officials present to keep the peace. That works fine in one or two buildings - but fails utterly on an open campus.

[PhantomPholly]

The 'psycho gun culture' is nurturing mass murderers?! That is the most asinine thread of the week.....perhaps easily the MONTH! What 'Psycho gun culture' is that, exactly?

We've had a 'Gun Culture' for 2 centuries.......school mass-murders are a phenomenon of the last 25 years......what ****ING CULTURE do you think most correlates with that time frame?!

Hint: NOT THE 'GUN CULTURE'!

The mass-murders at schools are possible only because teachers no longer carry firearms. Making guns illegal only insures that criminals need not fear armed resistance.

The "Psycho-gun culture" is an invention of the Left, a straw-man to rationalize taking away our right to self-defense. Similar arguments against Free Speech were made by detractors of Socrates - who proved more than willing to commit murder to prevent free expression of thought. Today's issues are no different, because people are no different. Only the tools change.

[Greyclouds]

The mass-murders at schools are possible only because teachers no longer carry firearms. Making guns illegal only insures that criminals need not fear armed resistance.

The "Psycho-gun culture" is an invention of the Left, a straw-man to rationalize taking away our right to self-defense. Similar arguments against Free Speech were made by detractors of Socrates - who proved more than willing to commit murder to prevent free expression of thought. Today's issues are no different, because people are no different. Only the tools change.

I can see the logic behind your principles; however, college students are also encouraged to drink alcohol despite it being illegal for them to do so.

I'm pretty sure that even the gun-lobby agrees that guns+alcohol are not a good combination. Remove the alcohol from campus and the social dream of a "drunk" college experience, and sober, legal CCP's become a good idea.

Its similar to the concept that one could live an abstinent life in a bordello, but there's a high probability that sex is going to happen at one point or another.

[PhantomPholly]

I can see the logic behind your principles; however, college students are also encouraged to drink alcohol despite it being illegal for them to do so.

I'm sorry, who is encouraging them to drink and what does that have to do with this thread? Obviously nothing, since it is legal for an 18 year old to have a carry permit but not to drink.

I'm pretty sure that even the gun-lobby agrees that guns+alcohol are not a good combination. Remove the alcohol from campus and the social dream of a "drunk" college experience, and sober, legal CCP's become a good idea.

Remove the guns from the responsible students, and no one will be able to protect themselves from a drunk student. Again, your argument is a false straw-man. The "rule" against drinking on campus stops - no one, save the rule-following students. Someone liable to get drunk and flash around their gun will not be deterred in the least, so your point is a non-sequitar ("doesn't follow").

Its similar to the concept that one could live an abstinent life in a bordello, but there's a high probability that sex is going to happen at one point or another.

What, enforcing the Constitution is going to cause students to recklessly arm themselves before drinking and then go on a shootin' spree?

I think you have spent too much time on campuses inhaling the vapors...

:))

The reality is that instead of taking an Ostrich approach to life we should be treating self-defense as one of our most basic life skills. Instead we have powerful lobbies dedicated to persuading people to abdicate this fundamental responsibility - grooming them to be wage-slaves and easily "managed."

That's a far cry from the "Rugged Individualists" who originally made America great. They would be disgusted...

[AmericanSpirit]

Regardless of the level of training and competence of ANY police department, ultimately their job is NOT to ensure your personal safety. That job is still yours. Their job is to enforce the law, ensure the peace and protect the public in a very general sense, and no obligation is owed (nor could be given, anyway) to any individual.

I wish more people think like that. But it seems to me there are plenty of people in this country that think the job is ultimately...YOURS.

Protect me...PLEASE!!!! :pray:

[Greyclouds]

I'm sorry, who is encouraging them to drink and what does that have to do with this thread? Obviously nothing, since it is legal for an 18 year old to have a carry permit but not to drink.

You have been on a college campus recently, no?

Also, many STATES have designated places where concealed carry is not permitted. Bars are a common place where you cannot carry a concealed firearm.

http://www.ccrkba.org/ccwstudy.html


Remove the guns from the responsible students, and no one will be able to protect themselves from a drunk student. Again, your argument is a false straw-man. The "rule" against drinking on campus stops - no one, save the rule-following students. Someone liable to get drunk and flash around their gun will not be deterred in the least, so your point is a non-sequitar ("doesn't follow").

I'm all for an increase in the penalties for not following your state's CCP rules (throw the book at the people who give the CCP a bad name) and an increase in issuance. STILL, many states see the same point that I was making, and restrict CCP from certain public locations. STATES, mind you.


What, enforcing the Constitution is going to cause students to recklessly arm themselves before drinking and then go on a shootin' spree?

This is a straw-man. Instead I am suggesting that there are reasonable limits on Constitutional rights. I am not advocating the complete abandonment of the 2nd amendment.


I think you have spent too much time on campuses inhaling the vapors...

:))

No need for ad hominems. Oh, and I only drink alcohol. Thank you for inquiring.


The reality is that instead of taking an Ostrich approach to life we should be treating self-defense as one of our most basic life skills. Instead we have powerful lobbies dedicated to persuading people to abdicate this fundamental responsibility - grooming them to be wage-slaves and easily "managed."

That's a far cry from the "Rugged Individualists" who originally made America great. They would be disgusted...

Heh, well, it is a far bigger society in Modern times than back then. Oh, and I'm sure that those very same "Rugged Individualists," had to prepare their own basic food supplies; we don't. It's also a good thing that we don't, because that gives us time to do things such as post on internet message boards.

I see the refinement of rights and restrictions as a GOOD thing, as it not only proves that the Constitution of the US is an adaptable document, but also that our actions can be clearly labeled. I'd rather know my limits and rights than to be unsure of the consensus legal repercussions, no?

[sgdp]

Thanks again for the input guys. All of you. This is helping me think of questions, because I'm already leaning in one direction. I have to know how all sides feel.

And thanks for the link, Greyclouds.

[Greyclouds]

Thanks again for the input guys. All of you. This is helping me think of questions, because I'm already leaning in one direction. I have to know how all sides feel.

And thanks for the link, Greyclouds.

You're welcome.

BTW, I hope noone thinks that I'm all for rescinding the 2nd amendment. I'm not.

[sgdp]

You're welcome.

BTW, I hope noone thinks that I'm all for rescinding the 2nd amendment. I'm not.

I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't think that. I see both sides of this issue, for sure.

[PhantomPholly]

You have been on a college campus recently, no?

Yes. I didn't see anyone encouraging anyone to drink - they figure that out on their own. It still has nothing to do with our Second Amendment Right, so please try to stick to the subject and stop posing straw-man arguments.

Also, many STATES have designated places where concealed carry is not permitted. Bars are a common place where you cannot carry a concealed firearm.

Yep, and those rules would still be in effect for students in bars. We've covered this topic - in a courtroom, there are typically dozens of armed police present to insure the safety of all. On a campus, a few widely scattered campus security. No comparison - give it up.

http://www.ccrkba.org/ccwstudy.html

Yep, some states are actively seeking to overturn the Second Amendment. They were set back severely by the recent acknowledgment by the SCOTUS that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right.

I'm all for an increase in the penalties for not following your state's CCP rules (throw the book at the people who give the CCP a bad name) and an increase in issuance. STILL, many states see the same point that I was making, and restrict CCP from certain public locations. STATES, mind you.

Yes, they see pink elephants too - or more correctly, they either:
a) are Marxists who want to get control of all the guns so that people cannot challenge their lordship or
b) don't give a hoot about anything but elections, have no morals or scruples about bending the Constitution to do so, and simply see this as an excuse to say they are "trying to reduce gun violence."

In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.

This is a straw-man. Instead I am suggesting that there are reasonable limits on Constitutional rights. I am not advocating the complete abandonment of the 2nd amendment.

There is no such thing as a reasonable limit on a Right - the mere argument is a straw-man. We allow State Sponsors of Terrorism to speak in our institutions of higher learning - that is far more dangerous than allowing honest citizens the right to self-defense.

However, since you bring it up there really is another reason for the 2nd Amendment which Lieberals hate. It is that the existance of 300,000,000 million guns puts limits on how far our politicians dare exceed their legal limits of their appointed powers before certain consequences are statistically probable.

No need for ad hominems. Oh, and I only drink alcohol. Thank you for inquiring.

Hey, I add homonyms, pseudonyms, and any other sort of nym...

:D

Heh, well, it is a far bigger society in Modern times than back then.

Yes, that has been the catchphrase of politicians for over 3,000 years of recorded history: "Things are DIFFERENT now..."

Last I checked, humans have not really changed fundamentally over that time period, nor have the laws of physics nor fundamental ethics.

Oh, and I'm sure that those very same "Rugged Individualists," had to prepare their own basic food supplies; we don't. It's also a good thing that we don't, because that gives us time to do things such as post on internet message boards.

Another misconception - people were highly specialized 200 years ago. Take your typical cowpoke - they had dozens of special skills as well as athletic inclination. Do you think they made their own hats, or canned their own beans? I actually know a modern day cowboy, and he posts on forums just fine, thank you, and also happens to have his PhD in Paleontology.

Self-reliance is an attitude and an approach to life - one that accepts responsibility for your own lot in life rather than asking for a court decision or a handout from Government (a Bribe: I'll vote for you if you will steal from others and give to me) to change the outcome of their failure. It is the opposite of dependent parasitism, the growing cancer within our society. This approach is the antithesis of Marxism, which seeks to ensure that no person might be recognized above another no matter what their accomplishments.

I see the refinement of rights and restrictions as a GOOD thing, as it not only proves that the Constitution of the US is an adaptable document, but also that our actions can be clearly labeled. I'd rather know my limits and rights than to be unsure of the consensus legal repercussions, no?

And I see your attitude as an pitiful abomination, one more voice raised to strike down freedom in favor of false security. It is the voice of a weak and frightened individual with no understanding that the outcome of your philosophy has been written millions of times in history, and that that outcome is always a tyrannical government under which your only freedom is to cower, afraid that they will strip you of the small portions they deign to throw your way.

That's ok. I, and many of your betters, devoted years of our lives to preserve your right to hold innately irrational and unethical viewpoints.

[Syfted]

I was once given the following explanation: if the police see a student in a classroom with a weapon drawn after having a shooting called in, the kid's going to be shot on sight. They have no idea whether that person is friend or foe.

I disagree with the logic, and have long been an advocate for 21+ CCW on campus. Like anything else this is an analysis of cost:benefit; in the long run with CCW on campus, you're going to save more innocent lives than you are going to lose due to absurd scenarios.

I go to a very safe University and we still have freaky stuff happen. Last year we had some creeper 50+ year old sneaking into girls bathrooms. And then there's always some stupid kid who thinks it's funny to try and take a picture of a girl in a shower or do something similarly stupid. I know a few girls who carry non-lethal protection like pepper spray, etc.

The association with CCW on campus being a problem is that college = booze and booze + firearms = death. The only thing that could be as harmful would be booze and cars. But at least the gun has a safety switch.

I think the primary reason for amendment #2 was protection in its many capacities, including protection from the government.

[Greyclouds]

Yes. I didn't see anyone encouraging anyone to drink - they figure that out on their own. It still has nothing to do with our Second Amendment Right, so please try to stick to the subject and stop posing straw-man arguments.



Yep, and those rules would still be in effect for students in bars. We've covered this topic - in a courtroom, there are typically dozens of armed police present to insure the safety of all. On a campus, a few widely scattered campus security. No comparison - give it up.

Where does the majority of drinking take place on a College campus? Keep in mind that the MAJORITY of student's ages range from 17-20.

Not a strawman; just pointing out that college alcohol abuse is NOT restricted to bars where you are not legally allowed to carry a firearm anyways (presumably because alcohol DOES influence your better judgement).



Yep, some states are actively seeking to overturn the Second Amendment. They were set back severely by the recent acknowledgment by the SCOTUS that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Yes, they see pink elephants too - or more correctly, they either:
a) are Marxists who want to get control of all the guns so that people cannot challenge their lordship or
b) don't give a hoot about anything but elections, have no morals or scruples about bending the Constitution to do so, and simply see this as an excuse to say they are "trying to reduce gun violence."

In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.

Strawman. I am NOT for rescinding the 2nd amendment, and if you look carefully at those states' gun laws, they DO allow for the purchase, use and maintenance of firearms.


There is no such thing as a reasonable limit on a Right - the mere argument is a straw-man. We allow State Sponsors of Terrorism to speak in our institutions of higher learning - that is far more dangerous than allowing honest citizens the right to self-defense.

However, since you bring it up there really is another reason for the 2nd Amendment which Lieberals hate. It is that the existance of 300,000,000 million guns puts limits on how far our politicians dare exceed their legal limits of their appointed powers before certain consequences are statistically probable.

The founding fathers intended for militias to keep the federal government in check, true.

Is it just the liberals who are scared of being run out of political office? I'd say that ALL POLITICIANS are scared of losing power.


<snip>
Yes, that has been the catchphrase of politicians for over 3,000 years of recorded history: "Things are DIFFERENT now..."

Last I checked, humans have not really changed fundamentally over that time period, nor have the laws of physics nor fundamental ethics.

Technology HAS changed.

Do you have stockpiles of ordinance and aircraft to deliver the bombs to select military targets in the case of an insurrection? No? Our military DOES have such things.

Do you have air superiority fighters that can engage any radar signature from miles away? No? Our military DOES have such things.

At best, you can use guerrilla tactics like our founding fathers did... but I assure you that the federal government's troops will not wear redcoats and use inaccurate musket balls.

Armed rebellion is far less of a possibility than it has been in the past. I mean, hell, the Visigoths were able to tackle the Roman armies! The British colonists were able to rebel against the British! How about now-a-days?


Another misconception - people were highly specialized 200 years ago. Take your typical cowpoke - they had dozens of special skills as well as athletic inclination. Do you think they made their own hats, or canned their own beans? I actually know a modern day cowboy, and he posts on forums just fine, thank you, and also happens to have his PhD in Paleontology.

Self-reliance is an attitude and an approach to life - one that accepts responsibility for your own lot in life rather than asking for a court decision or a handout from Government (a Bribe: I'll vote for you if you will steal from others and give to me) to change the outcome of their failure. It is the opposite of dependent parasitism, the growing cancer within our society. This approach is the antithesis of Marxism, which seeks to ensure that no person might be recognized above another no matter what their accomplishments.

What percentage of the American population DOES practice self-reliance? Keep in mind, we have been under a regulation-based market system since the 40's, and that our major population centers have shifted from rural locations to urban centers.

Your example, notwithstanding.


And I see your attitude as an pitiful abomination, one more voice raised to strike down freedom in favor of false security. It is the voice of a weak and frightened individual with no understanding that the outcome of your philosophy has been written millions of times in history, and that that outcome is always a tyrannical government under which your only freedom is to cower, afraid that they will strip you of the small portions they deign to throw your way.

That's ok. I, and many of your betters, devoted years of our lives to preserve your right to hold innately irrational and unethical viewpoints.

Right.

Would you like to hear my suggestion prior to your stampede towards judgement?

If you can't beat them, join them. Participate in the political system to gain enough of a power base in order to influence it. Your single gun does not grant you enough power to make a difference; Chairman Mao's advice falls flat here. Multiple guns DO.

Prior military engagements often weighed the number of troops on both sides as a predetermination of victory (there are some exceptions based on implementation of expert military strategies). Today, one must ALSO weigh technology as a factor.

Your Bushmaster has nothing on a fully-loaded apache. The tactical advantage goes directly to the Apache in MOST combat situations. Strategically, the apache can accomplish more as well.


If you can politically sway the people who pilot and own the apache though...

[sgdp]

FTR, my state's legislative push to prohibit gun bans on public university property failed in committee.

[johnrocks]

i think they should be allowed, it is coming up in my State of Louisiana.

[greenrebel6]

First let me say ... wow ... WOW! Wow. Wow. I dont understand how some of these Liberal idiots think... I do not understand how you can rationalize in your head that if something is illegal then it cannot hurt you and you therefore must be safe... because your almighty government says its bad ... then that means its no longer available to own/possess. Criminals don't care about the laws ... That is why they are "Criminals". Criminals do not care that we say they cannot do something ... WHY? Because they are criminals ... So why THE HELL! Do you think controlling something thru regulation will stop them? It wont!!!! It only prevents you!!! The law abiding citizen from protecting yourself!!!

On another note ...

When did the United States of America become the United States of Wimpy Push Over I Take No Responsiblity For Anything America? When did people become scared of defending themselves by force? When did we become a bunch of "Whiner babys"? I am confused. I really dont understand!!! Im 25 and im so damn angry with our goverment i dont even know where to start ... Sorry I went off on a tangent...

[Greyclouds]

First let me say ... wow ... WOW! Wow. Wow. I dont understand how some of these Liberal idiots think... I do not understand how you can rationalize in your head that if something is illegal then it cannot hurt you and you therefore must be safe... because your almighty government says its bad ... then that means its no longer available to own/possess. Criminals don't care about the laws ... That is why they are "Criminals". Criminals do not care that we say they cannot do something ... WHY? Because they are criminals ... So why THE HELL! Do you think controlling something thru regulation will stop them? It wont!!!! It only prevents you!!! The law abiding citizen from protecting yourself!!!

That's not the rationalization.

Here's the rationalization: limit potentially dangerous situations.


Can you be drunk and responsibly handle a firearm? State governments state that you cannot. They also maintain that you cannot operate a motor vehicle or boat that belongs to you while intoxicated. Sure, it doesn't prevent ALL occurrences of DUI or BUI, HOWEVER, it prevents SOME occurrences.

In a perfect world? We wouldn't have a discussion about making things legal or illegal; people wouldn't act with such indiscretions.


On another note ...

When did the United States of America become the United States of Wimpy Push Over I Take No Responsiblity For Anything America? When did people become scared of defending themselves by force? When did we become a bunch of "Whiner babys"? I am confused. I really dont understand!!! Im 25 and im so damn angry with our goverment i dont even know where to start ... Sorry I went off on a tangent...

What does this have to do with responsibly owning and maintaining a firearm?

I know this is tangential, but what is responsible about having a CCP, carrying your firearm, and getting drunk at a bar? A BAC as low as 0.08 impairs your judgment and (depending on your own personal susceptibility to alcohol intoxication) could endanger the rights of others.

As Benjamin Franklin stated, your rights end when someone else's begin.

I know many responsible CCP owners. They leave their guns at home (locked and safe) when they go out with friends to get drunk. They also don't drive. Are they pansies?

[sanscleverusername]

If students were to learn early in their lives, that law enforcement personnel bear no obligation to protect the individual from crime, many would be clamoring to apply for CCW permits when they head out on their own. Be it to college or anywhere else.. Personal responsibilities, including that of self defense, should be taught long before a student reaches college age, regardless of the personal feelings of the teacher. The common concern in most of the replies herein, is that students are not responsible enough to be armed on campus. If this is the case, then are they responsible enough to be out on their own, and should they be kept at home until they learn such personal responsibility? If we trust them enough to leave the nest and venture out to make a life for themselves, we should trust that they understand the consequences from the misuse of any firearm they carry for protection of themselves or others. It is a sad commentary on our education system when students graduate high school without a rudimentary understanding of the laws by which they are governed. It is also sad when an incident like that at Virginia Tech, is a student's first lesson in the role of law enforcement.

If law enforcement can not, or will not protect the individual from crime, then no law should be passed to infringe upon the individual's right of self protection. Thus any law allowing the individual to carry a firearm would be unnecessary.

[PhantomPholly]

Where does the majority of drinking take place on a College campus? Keep in mind that the MAJORITY of student's ages range from 17-20.

Not a strawman; just pointing out that college alcohol abuse is NOT restricted to bars where you are not legally allowed to carry a firearm anyways (presumably because alcohol DOES influence your better judgement).

It is, in fact, another strawman. If you presume this to be otherwise, please provide evidence of drunken college students going on shooting sprees in higher numbers than adults. Hint: I already know the answer.

In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.
Strawman.

What are you smoking? The facts are the facts.

I am NOT for rescinding the 2nd amendment, and if you look carefully at those states' gun laws, they DO allow for the purchase, use and maintenance of firearms.

Really? New York City? Sorry, but some edge case "graciously allowing" a few individuals what is a Constitutional Right does not convince me that they are operating within the intent of our Founders.

The founding fathers intended for militias to keep the federal government in check, true.

Is it just the liberals who are scared of being run out of political office? I'd say that ALL POLITICIANS are scared of losing power.

Certainly; however, you don't see Republicans seeking to repeal the 2nd Amendment, nor even (except for a few RINOs) to limit it. In any event, this statement has no bearing on the fact that there is no such thing as a "reasonable" limit on a Right.

Technology HAS changed.

Do you have stockpiles of ordinance and aircraft to deliver the bombs to select military targets in the case of an insurrection? No? Our military DOES have such things.

Do you have air superiority fighters that can engage any radar signature from miles away? No? Our military DOES have such things.

At best, you can use guerrilla tactics like our founding fathers did... but I assure you that the federal government's troops will not wear redcoats and use inaccurate musket balls.

Armed rebellion is far less of a possibility than it has been in the past. I mean, hell, the Visigoths were able to tackle the Roman armies! The British colonists were able to rebel against the British! How about now-a-days?

What a ridiculous delusion. First of all, if every American were armed with nothing but pistols and they suddenly decided that our Congress was committing Crimes Against Humanity, those pistols would most certainly be sufficient to deal with the issue. Second, Armed Rebellion happens every bit as frequently today as it has in history - perhaps more so. If a revolution were to start in this country today, it would most certainly involve some if not most of our military taking sides. So, the best we could hope for is that the military would either stay out of it or simply arrest Congress and allow us to elect a new set of idiots to take their place - after Tribunals to satisfy the mob's lust for revenge, naturally.

What percentage of the American population DOES practice self-reliance? Keep in mind, we have been under a regulation-based market system since the 40's, and that our major population centers have shifted from rural locations to urban centers.

Regulations and geographical location are irrelevant to self-reliance, which is a mind set. Self Reliance means paying your bills, eliminating your debt, and providing for yourself and your family without expecting the government or some other person or group to do it for you. The fact that you are completely ignorant of this concept speaks clearly to our public education system.

Right.

Would you like to hear my suggestion prior to your stampede towards judgement?

If you can't beat them, join them. Participate in the political system to gain enough of a power base in order to influence it. Your single gun does not grant you enough power to make a difference; Chairman Mao's advice falls flat here. Multiple guns DO.

Prior military engagements often weighed the number of troops on both sides as a predetermination of victory (there are some exceptions based on implementation of expert military strategies). Today, one must ALSO weigh technology as a factor.

Your Bushmaster has nothing on a fully-loaded apache. The tactical advantage goes directly to the Apache in MOST combat situations. Strategically, the apache can accomplish more as well.

If you can politically sway the people who pilot and own the apache though...

Yes, that is one tactic. It is called, "Hope."

When waging warfare, every option must be on the table. Your simplistic strategy can never succeed unless your opponent knows you are willing to take the next step - they will simply call your bluff, lead you on, or ignore you.

Too, if you "simply join them" you end up being just like them - lacking in ethics and principles. No thanks.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

[Greyclouds]

Quote:
Quote:
In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.
Strawman.
What are you smoking? The facts are the facts.

PhantomPholly, the above is a distortion of quoted text that I found in your last post. I'd ask you to please edit your post to remove this distortion.

I was responding to your text in the quote brackets in my post. The quoted text was:

Yep, some states are actively seeking to overturn the Second Amendment. They were set back severely by the recent acknowledgment by the SCOTUS that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Yes, they see pink elephants too - or more correctly, they either:
a) are Marxists who want to get control of all the guns so that people cannot challenge their lordship or
b) don't give a hoot about anything but elections, have no morals or scruples about bending the Constitution to do so, and simply see this as an excuse to say they are "trying to reduce gun violence."

In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.


I responded, IN ENTIRETY, with the following:

Strawman. I am NOT for rescinding the 2nd amendment, and if you look carefully at those states' gun laws, they DO allow for the purchase, use and maintenance of firearms.


Note, that I was calling your entire quote a strawman, because of the context in which you declared that I was all for rescinding the 2nd amendment. You changed it to look like I was calling your singular claim a strawman. This is misleading.

[Greyclouds]

It is, in fact, another strawman. If you presume this to be otherwise, please provide evidence of drunken college students going on shooting sprees in higher numbers than adults. Hint: I already know the answer.

You're not taking the quoted text into context. I am simply restating the fact that guns are not legally permitted in bars in many states. Bars serve alcohol. College campuses are also rife with alcohol, and are less restricted with their circulation of it (disagree? Then how was my "dry" campus so rife with alcohol that I was able to potentially get drunk every night during the week if I so wanted? Sure, its a personal story, but I have a link to back it up)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4VGW4WJ-6&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=4feb53312e1fe7db039558b4a7f26ab1




Really? New York City? Sorry, but some edge case "graciously allowing" a few individuals what is a Constitutional Right does not convince me that they are operating within the intent of our Founders.

Every state restricts your first amendment rights as well. You lack the ability to exclaim certain phrases with the intent to cause or promote harm to others.

There are legal limits on your rights; they are not all-encompassing.

Having said that, I DO recognize responsible owners of firearms as being fully lawful citizens. I DO support the 2nd amendment, albeit with the same state-by-state limitations on it as are imposed on the 1st amendment.


Certainly; however, you don't see Republicans seeking to repeal the 2nd Amendment, nor even (except for a few RINOs) to limit it. In any event, this statement has no bearing on the fact that there is no such thing as a "reasonable" limit on a Right.

How about the freedom of the press to report on US military positions? That should not be a limit on that right, no?

I should certainly be allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded room to demonstrate my right to freedom of speech, no?

The reason why there are reasonable limitations on rights is so to prevent "cheats" from using the basis of those rights for evil purposes.


What a ridiculous delusion. First of all, if every American were armed with nothing but pistols and they suddenly decided that our Congress was committing Crimes Against Humanity, those pistols would most certainly be sufficient to deal with the issue. Second, Armed Rebellion happens every bit as frequently today as it has in history - perhaps more so. If a revolution were to start in this country today, it would most certainly involve some if not most of our military taking sides. So, the best we could hope for is that the military would either stay out of it or simply arrest Congress and allow us to elect a new set of idiots to take their place - after Tribunals to satisfy the mob's lust for revenge, naturally.

So, you're saying that the worst case scenario, that an unorganized mob armed with pistols would be able to storm the capital and usurp Congress?

Sure... if the Congressmen and women sat on their hands for a full 24 hours, and if we're talking 100,000 trained and armed ex-military civilians.

Your above statement assumes action by the military FOR the cause of usurpation. Keep in mind that the military could fall back on its sworn oath to serve the United States with the president as CinC. Imagine the casualties then, if said military focused its might on uncoordinated civilians.

Best case scenario would be a guerrilla war by civilians against the US government. Even then, that movement would be unable to evade satellite detection and infiltration by spies.


Regulations and geographical location are irrelevant to self-reliance, which is a mind set. Self Reliance means paying your bills, eliminating your debt, and providing for yourself and your family without expecting the government or some other person or group to do it for you. The fact that you are completely ignorant of this concept speaks clearly to our public education system.

I have never attended public school, but that's besides the point.

You have shifted the focus again.

Let me go back to the original context.

If you asked a random person in the streets of New York City if they knew how to butcher a cow, what are the odds that they would know the answer? Or perhaps if you asked a random person in Boston if they knew how to plant and harvest wheat with the intention of making bread?

81% of the population of the US lives in Urban or suburban environments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States


A
Yes, that is one tactic. It is called, "Hope."

When waging warfare, every option must be on the table. Your simplistic strategy can never succeed unless your opponent knows you are willing to take the next step - they will simply call your bluff, lead you on, or ignore you.

Alright, now read the next quoted passage and keep in mind that you linked these two paragraphs under the same context. Bolding and lettering, mine.

B
Too, if you "simply join them" you end up being just like them - lacking in ethics and principles. No thanks.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

So, in A you state that every option must be on the table.

In B you state that you would NOT put the option of working the political system against the system as an option on the table.

To finish off B you give an Edmund Burke quote that states that doing nothing is not an option.


So, really, you're just narrowing down options, huh?


RIGHT NOW, you have political ability in this nation. If you dislike our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, THEN TAKE POLITICAL OFFICE. Engaging in a bloody civil war is perhaps the least efficient way of achieving your goals as you've outlined here in this thread.

[PhantomPholly]

PhantomPholly, the above is a distortion of quoted text that I found in your last post. I'd ask you to please edit your post to remove this distortion.

By removing the little "quote=######" part you are making it more challenging to re-create the actual quote - but here it is anyway:

Remove the guns from the responsible students, and no one will be able to protect themselves from a drunk student. Again, your argument is a false straw-man. The "rule" against drinking on campus stops - no one, save the rule-following students. Someone liable to get drunk and flash around their gun will not be deterred in the least, so your point is a non-sequitar ("doesn't follow").

I'm all for an increase in the penalties for not following your state's CCP rules (throw the book at the people who give the CCP a bad name) and an increase in issuance. STILL, many states see the same point that I was making, and restrict CCP from certain public locations. STATES, mind you.
In 100% of the cases where guns have been outlawed, violent crime including gun incidents has risen. This is because when honest citizens cannot carry guns criminals know they have nothing to fear.

All of these are legitimate quotes; it would be a violation of TOS to do otherwise. The omitted part was simply sarcastic observation; the included portion was my point.

I responded, IN ENTIRETY, with the following:

Strawman. I am NOT for rescinding the 2nd amendment, and if you look carefully at those states' gun laws, they DO allow for the purchase, use and maintenance of firearms.

And I disputed you. I will grant you that you may not BELIEVE you are proposing rescinding the 2nd Amendment; however if that is so you are sadly mistaken. The Founders intention, well documented in The Federalist Papers and other writings, was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms for protection not only of your personal safety, but from a tyrannical government. This is why I clearly pointed out to you that, despite your mistaken notions to the contrary, there is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction on a Right."

Note, that I was calling your entire quote a strawman, because of the context in which you declared that I was all for rescinding the 2nd amendment. You changed it to look like I was calling your singular claim a strawman. This is misleading.

Actually, my abbreviated quote changed nothing. You are calling for limits on a Right, and once such are allowed there is no logical end point. Under your theory, the Right could be whittled down to where anyone who wanted to would be allowed only the option to carry a 20 lb wooden rifle with no sharp edges, and liberal lawyers would claim "the right was being observed." Nonsense. That approach is simply the nose of the camel under the tent - once you allow that, the rest of the camel is certain to follow.

Oh, and I note that this week the Dems have once again tried subterfuge to slip in gun control in an unrelated bill (one on parks), and are working on another one to control ammunition and yet a third to eliminate lead from ammunition as a "poison." The third is actually comical, since "something fatal" is the entire purpose of bullets, and I would be laughing if I did not understand that the libs are 100% serious about ending individual freedom, including the freedom to resist tyrannical government, in this country forever.

[PhantomPholly]

You're not taking the quoted text into context. I am simply restating the fact that guns are not legally permitted in bars in many states.
...

The only context I am taking anything you write under is as statements of things you believe support your contention that college students should be denied their Constitutional Rights. The quantity of alcohol present in a person's home or dormitory (which is what I infer you are alluding to, since you are talking about where students drink when not in bars) is really irrelevant. Life contains risk. Women get raped regularly at colleges, too - many of which could be STOPPED if they were allowed (and better yet, encouraged) to defend themselves.

Every state restricts your first amendment rights as well. You lack the ability to exclaim certain phrases with the intent to cause or promote harm to others.

There is a colossal difference between CARRYING a weapon and SHOOTING OFF your mouth. Unless you actually use the weapon in an illegal fashion, you have committed no crime.

In your world, we could conceivably limit where people could take their MOUTHS - since at any time they might conceivably SHOOT IT OFF!!!

:))

There are legal limits on your rights; they are not all-encompassing.

Having said that, I DO recognize responsible owners of firearms as being fully lawful citizens. I DO support the 2nd amendment, albeit with the same state-by-state limitations on it as are imposed on the 1st amendment.

Good - since there are NO State restrictions on carrying a MOUTH with you at all times, then you agree that the same should be true of guns.

I guess I just misunderstood you - we were agreeing all the time!

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. Once you understand that possession of both a gun and a mouth CAN be dangerous but CANNOT be restricted in a free society, you will be on the road to recovery.

[Greyclouds]

The only context I am taking anything you write under is as statements of things you believe support your contention that college students should be denied their Constitutional Rights. The quantity of alcohol present in a person's home or dormitory (which is what I infer you are alluding to, since you are talking about where students drink when not in bars) is really irrelevant. Life contains risk. Women get raped regularly at colleges, too - many of which could be STOPPED if they were allowed (and better yet, encouraged) to defend themselves.

Life does contain risk. The law recognizes that and allows for self-defense in such cases.

Case in point, drunken driving is a crime, despite the fact that charging a person for doing so could violate his/her right to travel from state to state without penalty.

It is rightfully a crime, because alcohol removes your capability to judge situations.


There is a colossal difference between CARRYING a weapon and SHOOTING OFF your mouth. Unless you actually use the weapon in an illegal fashion, you have committed no crime.

In your world, we could conceivably limit where people could take their MOUTHS - since at any time they might conceivably SHOOT IT OFF!!!

:))

So you're saying that there SHOULD be limits on a right? You're not allowed to shoot off your mouth, but you have a freedom of speech?

Then we are on the same page.


Good - since there are NO State restrictions on carrying a MOUTH with you at all times, then you agree that the same should be true of guns.

I guess I just misunderstood you - we were agreeing all the time!

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. Once you understand that possession of both a gun and a mouth CAN be dangerous but CANNOT be restricted in a free society, you will be on the road to recovery.

You dodged what the rights literally proclaim here.

1. Freedom of speech...

2. Right to bear arms.


Note, the right to bear arms DEFINITIVELY states that you can carry a weapon.

Note that the right to freedom of speech does not define such rights as the ability to, as you put it, "carry a mouth." Instead, it is a broader right allowing you to USE your mouth.

See?

So, your above statement that made a point that we should differentiate between shooting off your mouth and carrying a gun is not based on the literal delimitation of rights in the Constitution. That means that current laws that prohibit gratuitous or unsafe practices involving your freedom of speech or your freedom to carry a firearm are limitations of rights.

If you believe that it should be against the law to scream "fire" with intent to cause harm in a crowded room, then you believe in reasonable limits to Constitutional rights. Namely, when they have a chance to be maliciously used to inflict harm to other people.

[PhantomPholly]

Life does contain risk. The law recognizes that and allows for self-defense in such cases.

Case in point, drunken driving is a crime, despite the fact that charging a person for doing so could violate his/her right to travel from state to state without penalty.

It is rightfully a crime, because alcohol removes your capability to judge situations.

Operating an inherently dangerous piece of machinery while impaired is in fact committing a dangerous act. Having a gun in your pocket, even while drinking, is not inherently dangerous. Taking it OUT of your pocket and POINTING it at someone, whether drunk or sober, is rightfully illegal unless you are exercising your right to self defense. You really do seem to have difficulty distinguishing this fundamental difference.

So you're saying that there SHOULD be limits on a right?

I don't think I could be any clearer that you are either ignorant or pretending to be. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" limit on a right, unless the act of that right itself constitutes a violation of someone else's rights.

You're not allowed to shoot off your mouth, but you have a freedom of speech?

Freedom doesn't mean free from accountability. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to a microphone; nor to say things which endanger others (e.g. shouting "Fire" in a movie theater or printing the addresses of people who received A.I.G. bonuses knowing that an angry mob is searching for them); nor to use those words to threaten and intimidate people. Freedom of speech is, and has always been, very clearly limited to the right to express an idea or to express dissent.

In each case, your Freedom is unlimited until you infringe on the Freedoms / Rights of others. Liberals (and less frequently self-styled Conservatives) perpetually seek to blur those lines as an excuse to increase the power of Government, in itself an act infringing upon our individual Sovereignty and a violation of our Constitution.

Then we are on the same page.

Apparently not. I seem to be the only one here grasping the concepts...

You dodged what the rights literally proclaim here.

1. Freedom of speech...

2. Right to bear arms.

I'm not the one tap-dancing here. You need to go back and re-read the Constitution, and also the supporting writings such as the Federalist Papers. Those men did not write words as lightly, nor bandy their meaning, as you apparently are willing to do.

Note, the right to bear arms DEFINITIVELY states that you can carry a weapon.

Yep. It does not limit where, when, how big, how many "bullets," how quickly it can "fire," nor how or where upon your person that weapon is carried.

Note that the right to freedom of speech does not define such rights as the ability to, as you put it, "carry a mouth." Instead, it is a broader right allowing you to USE your mouth.

See?

As I said -you clearly do not understand your Rights. You should understand that if you do not UNDERSTAND your rights, you soon will not have any.

So, your above statement that made a point that we should differentiate between shooting off your mouth and carrying a gun is not based on the literal delimitation of rights in the Constitution. That means that current laws that prohibit gratuitous or unsafe practices involving your freedom of speech or your freedom to carry a firearm are limitations of rights.

Wrong again. It means that you have an unlimited right to carry a weapon or speak your mind SO LONG AS SUCH ACTION DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. So long as the fact eludes you that the entire Constitution was predicated on the inherent Sovereignty of the Individual, and that the only justifiable and ethical purpose of Government was to protect that Sovereignty from other Individuals and Countries, you will remain ignorant of your Rights.

If you believe that it should be against the law to scream "fire" with intent to cause harm in a crowded room, then you believe in reasonable limits to Constitutional rights.

Interesting I hadn't read this far when I wrote the example about yelling "fire" in a crowded place. See above to see how you have missed the point. Note that this example in particular "causes harm," thus impinging on the Rights of others.

Note too that it is not the expression of the yeller's psychotic words themselves which are prohibited - the same act in the middle of the forest would not be prosecuted. It is specifically the danger caused by their FALSELY "crying wolf" for which they get arrested. In other words, it is the dangerous act of FRAUD, not the words themselves, which is prohibited.

Namely, when they have a chance to be maliciously used to inflict harm to other people.

Again, a false conclusion. It is not the CHANCE that a gun might be used maliciously which represents an infringement on another's Rights, and so such a straw man has rightfully been discarded by the Supreme Court. Your logic is exactly the same as that of a small child who, once having burned themselves on a stove, struggles throughout their life to have stoves outlawed because they came to the wrong generalization that "stoves are BAD." In reality, stoves are TOOLS that can be DANGEROUS if MISUSED. They are also extremely USEFUL, and virtually every human has one or more in their household.

Now, I might imagine that perhaps you are terrified of guns; perhaps had someone hurt in your family at a young and tender age and drew the same false generalization as the youngster in my example above; or are perhaps simply a Statist (the new term for "wants totalitarian government") and are trying to persuade people to be stupid enough to willingly rescind their rights. But the bottom line is this: The Right to Bear Arms is not just about self protection from individual bad guys, but also so that Citizens might form a Militia to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

So, whether you are ill informed, an utter idiot, or actually very smart but have an ulterior agenda, you are still not going to win this argument with the 150,000,000 gun owners in America for the simple reason that you are wrong.

:razz:

Have a nice day!

[Apatriot]

How do you guys feel about gun-bans on public university property?

There's a bill in my state senate that would prohibit these public schools from establishing restrictions on possession of firearms/ammunition. Essentially, anybody on the campuses could open or concealed carry (in accordance with state law), including students and faculty.

Any thoughts?

I think that public colleges/universities should allow guns for people entitled to legally carry concealed in that state, be it faculty, students, staff or visiting parents.

[Apatriot]

Dumb idea. I hate to think what it would mean for civility and morality in our country if we have to have college students armed. Even including VT and NIU shootings you have a better statistucal chance of getting hit by lightning than being at a school shooter incident. If the psycho gun culture in the US keeps on nurturing mass murderers I could change my mind though.

At the Appalachian School of law in Virginia, in 2002, a crazed shooter started to rampage. Two other students when they saw the start of it ran to their cars to get their guns, then they stopped the shooter. The shooter only managed to kill the first three people he shot at. Mass murderers can be stopped by guns.

Also, most of the shooters weren't in the "gun" culture. They were in the video game culture.

[Apatriot]

The wild frat boy scenario is just bull, the proof is that if it were true, it would be happening now, since students are already armed, and those that think otherwise are fools.

True. When I was in college, most of the frat boys I knew had shotguns or pistols in their closet. Never heard of one that ended up being displayed during a drunken party. It's just not what most gun owners do.

[sgdp]

I think that public colleges/universities should allow guns for people entitled to legally carry concealed in that state, be it faculty, students, staff or visiting parents.

I'm sick of hearing about the violence on the campuses around here. Beatings, robberies, armed carjackings, arson, etc.

Just last night, a dating couple was studying in one of the lounges when 8 masked men beat them up and stole the woman's purse.

[PhantomPholly]

I'm sick of hearing about the violence on the campuses around here. Beatings, robberies, armed carjackings, arson, etc.

Just last night, a dating couple was studying in one of the lounges when 8 masked men beat them up and stole the woman's purse.

Yep. If all the college students were armed, such things would happen far less often.

It's amazing how polite an armed society can be.

[LoneStarHero]

The stupid deaths arising from accidents and disagreements will easily be more numerous than the few sporadic massacres that occur. Is it hard to see that there would be more harm than good? How many massacres have even occurred on Texas college campuses in the last twenty years?

There is just something about a bunch of eighteen year-olds in highly concentrated housing with weapons that bugs me. Perhaps it's the jumping in to hard partying coupled with mental issues from leaving home that doesn't make the idea seem wise.

However, I did hear that to have the conceal weapons permit in Texas, one has to be twenty one. That provision would deflate a bunch of my objection, as older students typically do not opt for on campus housing.

[PhantomPholly]

The stupid deaths arising from accidents and disagreements will easily be more numerous than the few sporadic massacres that occur. Is it hard to see that there would be more harm than good?

Not "hard," but impossible since the numbers throughout history do not support your hypothesis.

How many massacres have even occurred on Texas college campuses in the last twenty years?

Not many. However, that is irrelevant - an insane person will use an illegal weapon as soon as a legal one. And, if all the students were armed a "massacre" might be reduced to just a few injuries before the sick one is brought down.

There is just something about a bunch of eighteen year-olds in highly concentrated housing with weapons that bugs me. Perhaps it's the jumping in to hard partying coupled with mental issues from leaving home that doesn't make the idea seem wise.

Clearly you never served in the military. City blocks of high-occupancy housing filled with young armed men....

;)

They do just fine, with the exception of the occasional insane person noted above. And, if one goes off the deep end the others intervene long before the police arrive.

However, I did hear that to have the conceal weapons permit in Texas, one has to be twenty one. That provision would deflate a bunch of my objection, as older students typically do not opt for on campus housing.

There is a raging argument in our society as to what age is appropriate for an individual to earn the rights of an adult, and interestingly it seems to argue for younger in some cases and older in others. However I would note that in past generations 18 was sufficiently mature (if ever) for virtually every facet of adulthood, and it is only in modern times when we have TREATED 18 year olds as children that they have failed to behave in adult manner. Perhaps if we returned to a philosophy of consequences for actions instead of nannying our young into adulthood we would see some improvement in this area.