Lift Ban On Concealed Handguns On Campus?

March 31, 2009

Were does your self-justified right to protect yourself from your government end and your right to bear arms begin? Can't a truck filled with explosives be considered an arm?

Funny that you use Elian as an example. Government trying to legally enforce its right to boot an illegal alien? Thought it would be very popular on this board.

Rudy · March 31, 2009

If I'm a whackjob criminal, I'll get a gun. I may not get it from a store. If there's a ban on guns, and I want one enough, I'll get my hands on an unregistered, unlicensed gun and still go about my business of killing people. If I'm aiming to kill and get away, I really don't want a gun that can be traced, either. What I don't want to do is stroll into a shopping mall where people have CHLs, and get shot up because I'm outnumbered. Who knows if those with a CHL are just everyday store clerks or a pistol marksmanship instructor, and I don't wanna find out the hard way.

This is also the very reason it is unfair and extremely unnecessary to make ammunition so expensive. Its going to make it harder for the average joe to go to the range and shoot for fun, not make it harder for the criminal to get his ammo to kill people

Ahh, the great Elian raid. I remember people "up in arms" so to speak over the gun being pointed at that child. First of all, the agents had their weapons drawn as a saftey issue. You dont know who is behind each door. Second, the child and the relative are in MINIMAL danger at best. Notice the trigger finger of the agent. It is along the frame of the weapon above the trigger, meaning the MP5 wont fire. Sorry, I just remember the hell caught for that picture and getting pissed.

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

Funny that you use Elian as an example. Government trying to legally enforce its right to boot an illegal alien? Thought it would be very popular on this board.

Elian Gonzales was not an illegal alien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy

As to your original question, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. If someone wants to own a truck bomb, let them file an appeal in court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Edited March 31, 2009 by UNTflyer

March 31, 2009

Elian Gonzales was not an illegal alien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy
As to your original question, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. If someone wants to own a truck bomb, let them file an appeal in court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

He didn't "make it to land", he was rescued by the Coast Guard. So I suppose we should have let him drown..

So "firearm" is defined by the Supreme Court? And that is what the 2nd amendment is talking about with the right to bare arms? Curious..

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

Well...there kinda was...and I think you knew that, but thanks for the flippancy...it's been lacking on this board for a while...

No, I thought your arguments were baseless, which you were kind enough to prove by saying something like:

My belief is that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated...that it's intent, while at the time justified, has been purposely mis-interpretted by gun advocates as an arguement for why they should be able to own enough fire-power to make a Sandinista blush.

The second amendment is in place to guard against tyranny from your own government. Other arguments, such as hunting, sporting use, or even self protection against crime are secondary. At the time the bill of rights was presented to the Continental Congress, three of the colonies had state constitutions that clearly stated that arms should only be kept by members of the state militia. This wording was clearly rejected and wording was used to ensure that the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms, and not the rights of militias to do the same, was protected. The founders INTENT is clearly visible. This is further backed by many of the minutes of discussion of the continental congresses and the letter written by members.

Now, CBL, I can tell you are liberal leaning (Thats fine, I consider myself a libertarian because the dems can't seem to leave the second amendment alone, and the repubs can't seem to leave the first alone), so I am sure you agree with the separation of church and state. It's not mentioned anywhere in the constitution specifically, but the INTENT of the founders can be seen clearly. 11 of the 13 colonies at the time of the continental congress had a religious test to hold office. Even though there was pressure by some parts of the congress to include that, in the end it was left out. Again, couple that with the minutes of congress and the letters of members, and you see their intent.

The idea that putting more guns, in more people's hands and in as many more situations as possible somehow makes society safer seems inane.

But the idea of making sure that good people CAN NOT have guns, while it is impossible to ensure that bad people also CAN NOT have guns, is somehow valid? Look at Britain, not only is their per capita violent crime right much higher than the US's, but their use of firearms in crimes have increased since their handgun bans. All these laws do is ensure law abiding citizens are unarmed. They are, after all, law abiding, criminals, however, are criminals.

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

He didn't "make it to land", he was rescued by the Coast Guard. So I suppose we should have let him drown..
So "firearm" is defined by the Supreme Court? And that is what the 2nd amendment is talking about with the right to bare arms? Curious..

exercising_my_right_to_bare_arms_tshirt-

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

If I'm in fear of the government enough to feel that I need a gun to protect myself from them, then I'm going to bear arms whether the government gives me that right or not.

If you don't defend the second amendment, who says you'll be able to get one when you do fear the government.

This is a big issue for me because I still have lots of family in Mexico, and they have zero rights to to own firearms. The cartels and their own government can cheat them, kill them, do anything they want, and they have no recourse.

I am not kidding, if you complain about the government, first you get told to shut up, then your business or job is taken, then they kill you.

Next time you see me at a game, ask me how I know this.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · March 31, 2009

If you don't defend the second amendment, who says you'll be able to get one when you do fear the government.

Probably the same way people are able to obtain illegal drugs.

This is a big issue for me because I still have lots of family in Mexico, and they have zero rights to to own firearms. The cartels and their own government can cheat them, kill them, do anything they want, and they have no recourse.
I am not kidding, if you complain about the government, first you get told to shut up, then your business or job is taken, then they kill you.
Next time you see me at a game, ask me how I know this.

I don't doubt that that is how it is in Mexico...that's why so many Mexicans want to live here. But it does not really affect my opinion that if you (and your neighbors) are to the point of needing arms to protect yourself from the government, you're probably already ready to start a "war" with them (aka the Branch Davidian (sp?)) anyways.

Look, I'm not trying to "attack" the second amendment. I see it as useful as the first. But I see it as useful for personal, family, and property protection from anyone, be it citizen or government. Pretty much the only differences I have with a typical NRA member are what type of arms are allowed (I'm sorry, but assault rifles should be exclusively reserved for police, SWAT, and military purposes) and how many hoops there are to jump through before getting them. I don't agree with countries that don't allow any kind of gun ownership. In fact, the wife and I have discussed buying our first gun for home protection once our child is born (we're expecting ).

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

Probably the same way people are able to obtain illegal drugs.

You mean illegally? Is that how we should exercise our freedom of speech and religion also?

Pretty much the only differences I have with a typical NRA member are what type of arms are allowed (I'm sorry, but assault rifles should be exclusively reserved for police, SWAT, and military purposes) and how many hoops there are to jump through before getting them. I don't agree with countries that don't allow any kind of gun ownership. In fact, the wife and I have discussed buying our first gun for home protection once our child is born (we're expecting ).

I would love to hear your reason why one type of firearm should be allowed and not another. Seriously. You realize that there are many many people who do not want you to have ANY ability to own a firearm?

Also, I would love to hear your explanation of what an assault weapon is. Seriously.

Also, why some animals are more equal than others. I am fascinated by that one.

UNTflyer · April 1, 2009

I kind of see the point though... I mean, can you think of a scenario where citizens would really need to raise an army to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

Nope. Can't think of one.

KingDL1 · April 1, 2009

Look, I'm not trying to "attack" the second amendment. I see it as useful as the first. But I see it as useful for personal, family, and property protection from anyone, be it citizen or government. Pretty much the only differences I have with a typical NRA member are what type of arms are allowed (I'm sorry, but assault rifles should be exclusively reserved for police, SWAT, and military purposes) and how many hoops there are to jump through before getting them. I don't agree with countries that don't allow any kind of gun ownership. In fact, the wife and I have discussed buying our first gun for home protection once our child is born (we're expecting ).

I get the biggest kick out of this "Assault rifle" argument, really what is an assault rifle? If you mean a "military looking rifle" that shoots something like a .223 Remington one at a time, I think a ban is ridiculous, please realize most hunting rifles have as strong or stronger, even much stronger punch depending on cartridge type. If you mean fully automatic rifles say like the M-16 I agree, and well it already is illegal without a special federal license. Most people that talk about "assault rifles" as a special class have little idea about rifles.

UNT90 · April 1, 2009

I kind of see the point though... I mean, can you think of a scenario where citizens would really need to raise an army to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?
Nope. Can't think of one.

Just wait for the posts that will say "this could never happen here". They are coming.

The nations founders were smart enough to realize the power that government could wield against it's citizens, having seen it first hand. If you think that we are immune to a Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Saddam Hussein, you really need to study history.

A quick comparison to Germany in the early 1930s and the US right now would show frieghtening similarities. Not saying it's going to happen, but to think it's not a possibility is foolish.

I remember the movie Red Dawn, right after the Cuban general inhabits the town in Colorado, the first thing he does is send troops to the local gun stores to check all of the gun registration files for name and addresses of those who own guns, and then sends troops to those addresses to confiscate those guns (You'll never see that in niether Hollywood movie).

Also, and trust me on this, local police are way to understaffed to protect you from criminals. State governments are realizing this more and more, allowing residents to protect themselves.

A little history into how concealed carry came to be in Texas is below. Think of the VT shooting and you understand why this is under consideration.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nat...2/gunside1.html

oldguystudent · April 1, 2009

Shortly after the inauguration, I had my radio tuned to AM talk. The host was talking about how he had bought four guns and encouraged his listeners to do likewise because the new administration was going to take away the right to own a gun. He went on to say that he believed it was a fundamental right of every American to be able to protect their family and property. One of the weapons he chose for this purpose was a laser scope rifle capable of picking off a sparrow at 1000 yards (sorry, don't remember the exact type). I called him up and said that if I wanted to protect my house and family, I would imagine that a handgun with some good stopping power would probably do the trick. I couldn't imagine a scenario in which I would need to shoot somebody at 1000 yards, and if an intruder were in my house, I would want the easy of use of a hand gun. So why did he purchase such a weapon in the name of home protection. He hung up on me and had no answer on the air.

Personally I stick with a baseball bat and a knife in my house. I do indeed know how to use both of them, and I believe they're safer to have in the house in case of prying kids and their neighbor friends.

No more dangerous than having kitchen knives laying around.

I've lived in a country with no guns, and it was remarkable how many people didn't get murdered there. You'd have the occasional one-offer, but never a mass Virginia Tech like rampage. A person can only get so far with a knife. As crazy drunk and emotional as people there would get, I always joked that it was probably a good thing they didn't allow guns. It would reduce their population significantly!

I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel in the heat of the moment, too many people will use the most powerful weapon they have at their immediate disposal. I'd prefer that to be something in the realm of a tire iron than a gun. The former gives me a much more sporting chance.

UNT90 · April 1, 2009

For all who believe in gun control, this video is must viewing.

Edited April 1, 2009 by UNT90

KingDL1 · April 1, 2009

Shortly after the inauguration, I had my radio tuned to AM talk. The host was talking about how he had bought four guns and encouraged his listeners to do likewise because the new administration was going to take away the right to own a gun. He went on to say that he believed it was a fundamental right of every American to be able to protect their family and property. One of the weapons he chose for this purpose was a laser scope rifle capable of picking off a sparrow at 1000 yards (sorry, don't remember the exact type). I called him up and said that if I wanted to protect my house and family, I would imagine that a handgun with some good stopping power would probably do the trick. I couldn't imagine a scenario in which I would need to shoot somebody at 1000 yards, and if an intruder were in my house, I would want the easy of use of a hand gun. So why did he purchase such a weapon in the name of home protection. He hung up on me and had no answer on the air.
Personally I stick with a baseball bat and a knife in my house. I do indeed know how to use both of them, and I believe they're safer to have in the house in case of prying kids and their neighbor friends.
No more dangerous than having kitchen knives laying around.
I've lived in a country with no guns, and it was remarkable how many people didn't get murdered there. You'd have the occasional one-offer, but never a mass Virginia Tech like rampage. A person can only get so far with a knife. As crazy drunk and emotional as people there would get, I always joked that it was probably a good thing they didn't allow guns. It would reduce their population significantly!
I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel in the heat of the moment, too many people will use the most powerful weapon they have at their immediate disposal. I'd prefer that to be something in the realm of a tire iron than a gun. The former gives me a much more sporting chance.

For the home I like a 12-gauge shotgun, I have first hand seen how a criminal reacts to the cycle of a pump shotgun! I had simply amazing results, and sudden politeness.

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

Shortly after the inauguration, I had my radio tuned to AM talk. The host was talking about how he had bought four guns and encouraged his listeners to do likewise because the new administration was going to take away the right to own a gun. He went on to say that he believed it was a fundamental right of every American to be able to protect their family and property. One of the weapons he chose for this purpose was a laser scope rifle capable of picking off a sparrow at 1000 yards (sorry, don't remember the exact type). I called him up and said that if I wanted to protect my house and family, I would imagine that a handgun with some good stopping power would probably do the trick. I couldn't imagine a scenario in which I would need to shoot somebody at 1000 yards, and if an intruder were in my house, I would want the easy of use of a hand gun. So why did he purchase such a weapon in the name of home protection. He hung up on me and had no answer on the air.

Let me repeat myself:

The second amendment is in place to guard against tyranny from your own government. Other arguments, such as hunting, sporting use, or even self protection against crime are secondary. At the time the bill of rights was presented to the Continental Congress, three of the colonies had state constitutions that clearly stated that arms should only be kept by members of the state militia. This wording was clearly rejected and wording was used to ensure that the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms, and not the rights of militias to do the same, was protected. The founders INTENT is clearly visible. This is further backed by many of the minutes of discussion of the continental congresses and the letter written by members.

Personally I stick with a baseball bat and a knife in my house. I do indeed know how to use both of them, and I believe they're safer to have in the house in case of prying kids and their neighbor friends.
No more dangerous than having kitchen knives laying around.

Neither are guns, they are both inanimate objects. You probably teach your kids how to handle knives correctly, you'll probably teach how to handle the most powerful object most people will touch, the family car, and you can teach them firearms safety. My family taught me it.

I've lived in a country with no guns, and it was remarkable how many people didn't get murdered there. You'd have the occasional one-offer, but never a mass Virginia Tech like rampage. A person can only get so far with a knife. As crazy drunk and emotional as people there would get, I always joked that it was probably a good thing they didn't allow guns. It would reduce their population significantly!

Access to firearms doesn't cause violence in a society. Some, like the swiss, have much higher rates of firearm ownership, even FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, and they have a tiny violent crime rate, some, like the British, have almost no firearm ownership, and have much higher violent crime rates than we do.

By your logic, federal and state prisons should be incredibly safe, because no arms of any kind are allowed, the stats don't back you up.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel in the heat of the moment, too many people will use the most powerful weapon they have at their immediate disposal. I'd prefer that to be something in the realm of a tire iron than a gun. The former gives me a much more sporting chance.

I guess the bottom line for me is I also feel in the heat of the moment people can be irrational, and if someone comes at me with a tire iron, I would like to have a firearm to defend myself with. If you aren't comfortable with firearms, thats great, don't own them, just don't infringe on my right to defend myself.

UNT90 · April 1, 2009

They have the neatest new little lazer sights for pistols. They attach to the sides of the pistol and allw you to shot at the lazer dot instead of using the sights, thus improving accuracy greatly. They are accurate to within an inch from 50 yards.

As a side benefit, I have spoken to several officers who have had to point a handgun with this lazer sight at a criminal. The pyscological effect is much like the rack of a shotgun when they see that red dot on thier very own center mass. A great new tool, and cost a reletively cheap $200 (ballpark).

Imagine how many stray rounds this would prevent in a live firefight situation.

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

M1u0Byq5Qis

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

1GNu7ldL1LM

UNT90 · April 1, 2009

Shortly after the inauguration, I had my radio tuned to AM talk. The host was talking about how he had bought four guns and encouraged his listeners to do likewise because the new administration was going to take away the right to own a gun. He went on to say that he believed it was a fundamental right of every American to be able to protect their family and property. One of the weapons he chose for this purpose was a laser scope rifle capable of picking off a sparrow at 1000 yards (sorry, don't remember the exact type). I called him up and said that if I wanted to protect my house and family, I would imagine that a handgun with some good stopping power would probably do the trick. I couldn't imagine a scenario in which I would need to shoot somebody at 1000 yards, and if an intruder were in my house, I would want the easy of use of a hand gun. So why did he purchase such a weapon in the name of home protection. He hung up on me and had no answer on the air.
Personally I stick with a baseball bat and a knife in my house. I do indeed know how to use both of them, and I believe they're safer to have in the house in case of prying kids and their neighbor friends.
No more dangerous than having kitchen knives laying around.
I've lived in a country with no guns, and it was remarkable how many people didn't get murdered there. You'd have the occasional one-offer, but never a mass Virginia Tech like rampage. A person can only get so far with a knife. As crazy drunk and emotional as people there would get, I always joked that it was probably a good thing they didn't allow guns. It would reduce their population significantly!
I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel in the heat of the moment, too many people will use the most powerful weapon they have at their immediate disposal. I'd prefer that to be something in the realm of a tire iron than a gun. The former gives me a much more sporting chance.

What is required for personal protection is an individual choice.

But, like the lady in the video said, if you were trying to protect your home in the LA riots, would you want a hand gun or an assault rifle?

Everything is situational

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

W4IoUbdtnCs

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

I love me some (libertarian) John Stossel:

j_YTM_eAWnQ

Please, if you are going to watch any video in this thread, THIS IS THE ONE TO WATCH.

meangreendork · April 1, 2009

Wait, what's this got to do with 2nd Amendment Rights? It's more like showing the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge as groups that took the 2nd Amendment too far, and then showing Elian Gonzales as this random red herring.

I mean, I do side with you, but still, wtf.

Cerebus · April 1, 2009

Wait, what's this got to do with 2nd Amendment Rights? It's more like showing the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge as groups that took the 2nd Amendment too far, and then showing Elian Gonzales as this random red herring.
I mean, I do side with you, but still, wtf.

He's making a government tyranny argument. Lets not get sidetracked with inflammatory material.