Texas Professors Will Learn to Like Guns. Or Else (Bloomberg)

[eppur_se_muova]

By
Francis Wilkinson

Three University of Texas professors were informed this week that they will be "subject to discipline" if they try to ban concealed handguns from their classrooms. The warning was issued in a state legal brief connected to the professors' lawsuit seeking permission to prohibit guns in class.

It's hard to imagine a more vibrant canvas for culture war than the Texas campus-carry mandate, which went into effect at state colleges and universities earlier this month. Texas is gun country, and the state has joined a half-dozen others that guarantee campus-carry rights. But the University of Texas flagship campus in Austin is an elite institution and a liberal citadel in a state that caroms between business conservative and right-wing nutty.

The pointy-headed professors may once have had their run of the expansive Austin campus. But Republicans in the Legislature showed them who's boss: "You want boys in the girls' bathroom? We can top that. We'll give you loaded guns in your classroom."

Naturally, the three professors cited legal arguments in their complaint. There is a First Amendment claim that fear of guns in the classroom will chill academic freedom and robust speech. There is a creative Second Amendment claim that the Texas law makes no allowance for campus gun-toting to be "well regulated" in any way that enhances the personal safety of the professors and others. There is a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim that the professors' rights have been trampled.

But the gist of the lawsuit, best gleaned between the lines, is basically: "Are you nuts?"
***
more: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-12/texas-professors-learn-to-like-guns-or-else

[kimbutgar]

1. Unless one is a tenured professor I predict a mass exodus of academia from Texas

[a la izquierda]

4. I can tell you that I wouldn't apply for a job there.

And if my idiotic legislature pursues this-which I could see it doing- I will resign in protest.

[aikoaiko]

39. I doubt it. No evidence of lots of faculty leaving in other states that permit guns on campus.

Plus any that leave will be replaced easily because the lack of full-time positions and massive inventory of PhDs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. You got that backwards.

Tenured professors are established, connected, and mostly well-funded. They can pick up shop and move anywhere they want. Wherever they land, they will be hired with tenure.

[drray23]

165. tenured professors are the ones with tge grants.

Most of research funding does not come from the universities themselves. Rather you get it from nih, nsf, bes, etc.. based on the merits of your research program. A tenured professor usually has a suscessful research team with hundreds of thousands or even millions in grants. If they leave , they will be greeted with open arms at other places and bring their funding with them..

[guillaumeb]

2. When Judges, including the SCOTUS, allow guns in the courtroom,

and legislators allow guns in the legislature I will believe they really support these Second Amendment extremists.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. When gun control advocates live by the law then I'll believe they really support

the rule of law they would impose upon others.

[guillaumeb]

15. The wording of the Second Amendment WAS quite clear until Scalia

decided to reinterpret them to allow for individual rights to carry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Do you have any original sources to support your assertion?

[guillaumeb]

18. It was not an assertion.

Until Heller v DC there was zero SCOTUS precedent supporting an individual right to carry. Second Amendment enthusiasts, Scalia-ites, fanatics, whichever word you prefer, can ignore or try to explain this away, but the Second Amendment and the Constitution are/were quite clear as to what a well regulated militia is, and how the Second Amendment applies. Until Scalia came up with his ridiculous Original interpretation that required him to eliminate/ignore half of the wording.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. That's your interpretation and I believe your interpretation to have no historical basis.

[msanthrope]

109. Jesus, that was polite. Better than I could have managed. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. I have been impolite in the past. Impolite beyond excuse. I have to be better than that.

[sarisataka]

24. I think the question was

Which previous Supreme Court ruling declared that there was no individual right to firearms ownership.

For that matter where in the Constitution or its Amendments does it limit firearms ownership to only militia members?

[guillaumeb]

25. Prior to Heller, there was no individual right.

And, also prior to Heller, the well-regulated militia part of the Amendment was never interpreted to mean "anyone who felt that they had to own a gun".

[sarisataka]

26. So individuals were prohibited

From owning firearms pre-Heller? Or only militia members owned firearms?

I don't think that is correct.

Also I believe post-Heller is not "anyone who felt that they had to own a gun". I believe the categories of people prohibited from owning firearms is essentially the same pre and post-Heller.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Do you really expect an answer?

[sarisataka]

33. I'm surprised

I had one answer. Maybe I will get a standard dismissal.

Much like the NRA ( ) Heller is a veil to hide the failure of gun control organizations. The decision is constantly misrepresented as gunz everywhere for any reason.

[guillaumeb]

34. Your questions have no relation to what I said.

My comment was solely regarding SCOTUS decisions.

[sarisataka]

35. So then simply

What was the SCOTUS decision that restricted firearms ownership to the militia?

If there wasn't one then firearm ownership was indeed an individual right.

[guillaumeb]

40. The actual Second Amendment linked keeping and bearing arms

to a well-regulated militia. Unavoidable unless one follows the Antonin Scalia route of ignoring the wording.

[sarisataka]

44. So in short, no

there was no case history stating the the right to keep and bear arms was not an individual right, nor was there any decision that limited arms to the militia. Therefore Heller did not reinterpret the Second Amendment, it interpreted it for the first time.

I see no link that you claim in the text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The text specifically enumerates the right to the people, not to the militia.

Consider the draft text of June 8, 1789-

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Followed by a reworded version August 17 of that year-

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms

In these, and all other drafts of the Amendment, the right belongs to the "people" not reserved to the militia. The debate over the wording dealt primarily with the conscientious objector clause as Great Britain had used such to attempt to disarm the colonists. Therefore they changed the wording to "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" acknowledging some people who object to serving in the military still may bear arms for other reasons.

In the final, adopted text, the conscientious objector wording was eliminated along with the wording defining the militia as the Constitution already defined the militia.

In addition, if there was still the slightest doubt that the Second was not a "militia only" Amendment, on September 9, 1789 a proposal was put forth to add the words "for the common defense" immediately after "bear arms". It was rejected.

The Heller decision simply affirmed what had been de facto and de jure all along.

[guillaumeb]

66. An interesting but unoriginal explanation.

Why was the militia specifically mentioned in the Constitution and the Second Amendment?

[sarisataka]

75. Of course it is unoriginal

It is been the explanation for over two hundred years. If I was coming up with a completely original interpretation then there would be a problem.

You have been shown why militia is included. You just don't like the answer and keep asking the question hoping something will change.

Consider the time immediately after the Civil War. Were firearms banned in the southern states? At that point they were about as un-militia as can be. IIRC many Confederate soldiers were allowed to return home still carrying their guns.

[hack89]

55. Can you show any federal or state laws limiting gun ownership to militia member?

thanks.

[guillaumeb]

65. Read the Second Amendment prior to Scalia's rewording.

Cite SCOTUS precedent upholding an individual right to open carry.

[beevul]

56. The only one ignoring any wording, is you.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

As many of us have said, and the preamble to the bill of rights plainly confirms, the bill of rights is a "government shall not" document, not a "citizens may" document. That means that what people like you refer to as the "militia clause" is justificatory at best, and has no legal force of any kind.


Your interpretation does not square with those easily verifiable facts.

[guillaumeb]

69. So there is literally no reason for the words:

"a well regulated militia" to be in the Second Amendment?

Were those words intended by the Founders to be, as Justice Scalia said, "merely prefatory", or did the Founders have a specific reason for putting these two clauses together?

If the Founders did have a specific reason, what was it?

[beevul]

70. Sure there is. You just don't like or agree with it.

So there is literally no reason for the words:"a well regulated militia" to be in the Second Amendment?

Sure there is. You just don't like or agree with it.

Were those words intended by the Founders to be, as Justice Scalia said, "merely prefatory", or did the Founders have a specific reason for putting these two clauses together?

I prefer justificatory, since it describes exactly, what people like you refer to as "the militia clause".

It isn't like this sort of word structure hasn't been seen before:

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

Just like with the second amendment, it could say "Moon rocks being 70 percent lighter than stones on earth, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" and remain exactly the same restriction on government as before the change in wording.

If the Founders did have a specific reason, what was it?

To justify why government be restricted in this manner to future generations, and individuals such as yourself, who clearly need it explained.

Lets put this another way:

You would have everyone believe that the framers intended that "the militia" has a right to keep and bear, yet the body of people from which that militia is drawn does not, in spite of the fact that the second amendment refers to a right belonging to the people, not the militia.

That sentiment being held by the framers, is utterly laughable, and historically preposterous.

[guillaumeb]

72. You are ignoring the original intent, possibly because

the Heller v DC decision validated your belief.

Why was a militia mentioned in the Constitution?

What was the purpose of that militia?

Answer these questions and the purpose of the Second Amendment becomes clear.

[jmg257]

78. The intent is indeed quite clear...1) it is declared that well-regulated militias are necessary.

They had to be - in the constitution, the militias were given very specific roles in securing our freedoms when called forth in federal service. State militias composed of the body of the people were thought the best means of defense (& when needed maintaining law), and as a deterrent to creating large standing armies. Being entities of the states, they are required ("necessary&quot for keeping the several states free.


2) to be sure the govts, especially the federal govt which was just given questionable power related to arming the militias, could not DISarm the people who compose them, and so destroy the militias (or otherwise render them ineffective via their powers related to training & disciplining them - "well regulated&quot .


The intent & purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the existence of efficient state militias, by ensuring the people would always have the right and duty to keep and bear arms. In that way they could best serve to protect their liberties. An armed populace trained to arms was the best bet towards removing the pretext for those banes of liberty - standing armies.


There is no doubt it secures an individual right of the people.

"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

Justice Stevens

[beevul]

79. No, I'm embracing it.

This is the framers original intent:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

This is the original intent of the framers in their own words, it dovetails perfectly with Heller, and you are ignoring it.

[frankieallen]

162. Give it up dude, your getting your ass kicked

[guillaumeb]

164. No, you cannot accept that Scalia invented a right

that the framers never intended. Notice that none of these responders will admit that prior to Heller v DC there was no SCOTUS precedent involving an individual right to bearing arms outside the house or in context of the well regulated militia.

[beevul]

166. You are wrong. Again.

Under our system of government, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people, whether they're enumerated, protected, or not.

I guess that never occurred to you.

[metalbot]

38. You are asserting that no right exists until SCOTUS rules that it does?

So, until there was a ruling, free speech would not apply to computer communications, for example?

To your second point, militia is actually well defined in US code, so if you want to go down that road, then clearly every male between 18 and 45 would be able to own a gun. I actually think the militia argument is a VERY dangerous one for gun control advocates to take. If you had a SCOTUS decision that guns WERE restricted to the militia, an anti-federal state could pass a law stating that all adults were now members of the militia, which would then give them leeway to bypass all federal firearms laws.

[guillaumeb]

41. Did you miss the "well regulated" part of the wording?

The Founders explicitly called for possession to be linked to membership in a well regulated militia. And regulating that militia is under Federal purview.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. The 2A clearly says the right belongs to the people.

However, even if we take your interpretation (and you have demurred to show any historical basis for your interpretation) the federal law says --

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[guillaumeb]

67. Interesting that you left out, or forgot, the Constitution and its

provisions for regulating this militia. And only a well regulated militia is mentioned in the Second Amendment which negates any applicability for the unorganized militia, which was the great mass of white male citizens.

[beevul]

71. "And only a well regulated militia is mentioned in the Second Amendment... "

"And only a well regulated militia is mentioned in the Second Amendment... "

Right, it never mentions "the people" or their rights.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Where does the militia come from?

The people.

You overlook the fact that every reference to the people found in the constitution refers to the individual citizens, not citizens in service to the government.

[beevul]

59. Thats a mischaracterization.

The Founders explicitly called for possession to be linked to membership in a well regulated militia.

Nope. They said, in modern language, that:

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That could just as easily read "the moon having visible craters, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and mean exactly the same thing.

The restriction on government remains, regardless of the justification for that restriction.

You're doing this:

[Marengo]

73. When and where has this been enforced?

[Straw Man]

151. A rationale is not the same thing as a limitation.

The Founders explicitly called for possession to be linked to membership in a well regulated militia.

No, actually, they didn't. Try this analog:

"A well-informed electorate being vital to the health of a democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Would you construe that to mean that only registered voters should be allowed to keep and read books?

[Vattel]

174. nice analogy!

[Marengo]

167. When and where has the militia service requirement for possessing a firearm been enforced?

I've asked you this before, why won't you answer?

[guillaumeb]

168. The requirement is part of the Second Amendment.

Thus the link between a "well-regulated militia" and "the right...infringed".

[Marengo]

169. When and where was this enforced? When and where was gun ownership only permitted...

To persons in militia service?

[jmg257]

175. Isn't it clear that every member of governmnet, except for the President who is C in C,

cheerfully gave up their right to arms??

They were all exempt from militia service after all.

[Marengo]

178. I must have missed that lecture in American history.

[beevul]

173. The only requirement contained in the second amendment, is a requirement that the gov not infringe..

The only requirement contained in the second amendment, is a requirement that the gov not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The bill of rights grants no rights, authorizes no actions by government, and serves only to restrict government.

Besides that, as a governmental body, "the militia" would not have rights, it would have powers.

Only people have rights - that by itself, disproves your assertion completely.

[Marengo]

177. When and where was/is this link enforced? When and where were only members of the militia...

Permitted to posses firearms?

[hack89]

53. When in our history did we not commonly own guns outside of militia service?

can you show a single state enforcing gun ownership based purely on militia service? Thanks in advance.

[hack89]

54. You have never read Heller, have you?

or did you miss the part where is specifically says that the 2A allows strict gun control? The only right Heller confirms is the right to own a handgun inside you home. That is all.

[frankieallen]

161. Do you expect people to take your post seriously?

What a bunch of dribble.

[guillaumeb]

163. A well reasoned and balanced response.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Well Done!

When the House let's gallery visitors bring in guns, then we'll see if they have the courage of their convictions.

Nice catch.

[guillaumeb]

19. And Judges.

There is no right to carry in the SCOTUS building.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Criminals aren't allowed to carry a gun on campus or anywhere else.

[guillaumeb]

21. Many shooters were not criminals until they started shooting.

Failed attempt on your part.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Many drunk drivers weren't criminals until they started drinking and driving.

[Marengo]

51. Ah, so which do we ban, alcohol or motor vehicles?

[sarisataka]

58. I guess it depends

On which is the greater concern comma the means or the factor that leads to irresponsible actions.

Since we repeatedly see that the concern is only for the means of how a death is caused I would say we have to ban vehicles in this example.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. Obviously both since bans are so effective.

We can pass laws at the local, state, and federal level with law enforcement and dedicated agencies operating together with rigid sentencing standards to stamp out the scourge.

Just like the war on drugs!

[TipTok]

36. Until you get some all knowing pre-crime pre-cognitors....

You'll just have to get by as humans have for thousands of years knowing that people might commit crimes in the future.

[pablo_marmol]

98. The failed attempt is yours, as usual.

Of course 'many' shooters were not criminals until they started shooting because even a very small fraction of a very large number will produce 'many'.

What your statement childishly and dishonestly attempts to conceal is that unassailable crime stats have demonstrated that the vast majority of those who commit gun mayhem have criminal records. But keep on lying. It's been working out so well for you thus far.

[Eleanors38]

12. What has ever kept assholes from "walking into a university with a gun?"

[Duckhunter935]

27. Actually that is not correct

But I am sure you already know that as you are well educated. It is only legal for those older than 21 that pass the required background checks, training and screening and then have been issued a concealed carry permit.

[Initech]

29. I'll just shut up about guns from now on.

[Duckhunter935]

31. Please do not

But I do suggest you do some research on the subject. I am nowhere near perfect and make my share of errors. I accept it when this pointed out and am always glad to learn something new.

[pablo_marmol]

155. +1,000 NT

[deathrind]

77. It is telling how the.

Judges are more than happy to allow guns to be carried every where but in their court room.

[guillaumeb]

80. Agreed, but let us not forget legislators also.

Try carrying a weapon into the Capitol Building in Washington DC.

[deathrind]

81. Very true.

The legislators who draft the laws seem just as happy to let people carry firearms everywhere except where they are.

[Hoyt]

108. Good luck, you are debating people who believe George Zimmernan is a responsible gun owner,

shooting Martin should be counted as a defensive gun use, Stand Your Ground is good law, and may well have voted for Ted Nugent as an NRA Board member and the good guys with a gun lobbying program.

[redstatebluegirl]

7. I believe I read that the Dean of the Architecture College resigned due to this law.

I can't imagine a bunch of 18 year olds with raging hormones and unrealistic expectations in terms of their grades being armed. Architecture students work long hours in studio and go through "crits" of their work. Lots of stress, add guns, no thanks.

Same with pre-med students, they all want to be doctors and only a small percentage will be. Do you want to be their Organic Chemistry professor giving them a D?

Stupid...just plain stupid.

[JonathanRackham]

9. You have to be 21 and apply for a permit including extended background check.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Well, that's a comfort.

I'm sure they'll all be perfectly responsible gun owners -- until they're not.

[beevul]

60. Which other colleges where this was already allowed, have had problems? N/T

[Duckhunter935]

28. Please have just a little knowledge of the subject law

They must be 21, pass the required training and background checks. Pay the fees and have a valid concealed carry permit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. Why? Should it be a requirement to knowledge of the facts...

...before you voice an opinion on a subject?

[jmg257]

10. Texas can't be the only place where campus carry is allowed(?), how have other states

dealt with it? What issues/problems have occurred?

I did see an article about the costs involved with adding security etc.

[struggle4progress]

11. Guns on campus overview (National Conference of State Legislatures | 31 May 2016)

... 18 states .. ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus ... In 23 states the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campuses is made by each college or university individually ... Because of recent state legislation and court rulings, eight states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin ...

Utah remains the only state to have statute specifically naming public colleges and universities as public entities that do not have the authority to ban concealed carry ... Recently passed Kansas legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has "adequate security measures" ... Wisconsin legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities must allow concealed carry on campus grounds. Campuses can, however, prohibit weapons from campus buildings if signs are posted at every entrance explicitly stating that weapons are prohibited. All University of Wisconsin system campuses and technical community college districts are said to be putting this signage in place. Legislation passed in Mississippi in 2011 creates an exception to allow concealed carry on college campuses for those who have taken a voluntary course on safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor ...

... In March 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the University of Colorado’s policy banning guns from campus violates the state’s concealed carry law, and in 2011 the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System’s ban of guns on campuses, allowing those with permits to carry concealed guns on the grounds of these public colleges (Oregon's State Board of Higher Education retained its authority to have internal policies for certain areas of campus, and adopted a new policy in 2012 that bans guns in campus buildings) ...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

[Hekate]

14. One of my jobs at UC Santa Barbara was at the police station. No guns for civilians...

Nada. Not in your purse, not in the trunk of your car, not in your backpack. Not on campus.

I was the business admin assistant there one year, and worked in close proximity to the sworn uniformed officers. They had the usual array of weaponry, but that was part of their job.

That was quite awhile ago, but I cannot imagine that policy changing.

[yeoman6987]

30. So Utah allows open carry? I never heard a problem at all from this state.

How do they manage?

[Hekate]

13. Mass exodus of qualified academics?;staff members may be stuck ifthe Austin campus is major employer

...in the area.

It's hard for academics to start all over again elsewhere, as well. If you're tenured, you lose that distinction unless you are such a superstar that it becomes part of your recruitment package.

I used to work as a staffer at a major University, and especially after a stint as a part time secretary at a grant-funded lab with a slew of post-docs working for the eminent biochemist, I realized how hard it is to find jobs. English professors -- good luck. So many are adjuncts and lecturers in any case that they will never see tenure.

The idiots in the legislature are presiding over the demise of a great institution of learning. I hope the profs can get some sort of class action suit going.

[MicaelS]

49. Class action suit????

On what possible grounds?

[Hekate]

50. Danger in the workplace, among other things

[smirkymonkey]

20. This is just sick!

I'm just so glad I live in MA.

[TipTok]

37. "Legal Arguments"

1st Amendment - I'm scared and you'll have to accommodate me

2nd Amendment - Age requirements and licensing by the state

14th Amendment - I'm scared and you'll have to accommodate me

[MrScorpio]

43. I guess that folks there forgot about Charles Whitman

[sarisataka]

45. Are you aware,

that the police credited armed civilians with saving many lives by forcing Whitman to take cover from their fire?

Unless you think Whitman would have chose something else if there was a ban on firearms on campus.

[MrScorpio]

46. I am aware. I lived in Austin for a couple of years myself

And got acquainted with the story.

Didn't most of those citizens have to go their homes and vehicles and bring their long guns back to shoot at Whitman in the Tower? We're not talking about handguns being allowed in classrooms, right?

I don't know what good a .22 pistol would've done from that distance, shooting up from the ground. Probably not a whole lot of effectiveness at that lack of elevation and range.

Given Whitman's own range and accuracy, like the way he killed people way over on Guadeloupe, any damn fool with a handgun would have been a sitting duck.

Besides, the Tower was an isolated target that was out in the open, not an enclosed classroom setting. Whitman knew that he had the advantage of high ground from there.

If another Whitman were to happen, people with pistols on the ground would be less than useless. This latest thing isn't about keeping anyone safe, it's about feeding into white paranoia.

[sarisataka]

48. So actually Whitman is irrelevant

To the discussion of Campus carry.

I agree.

[Paladin]

52. Yeah, except for one thing:

The campus carry law was deliberately given an effective date of August 1, 2016: the 50th anniversary of the Whitman shootings.

And the notion that the Whitman massacre was some sort of Second Amendment triumph, due to a few civilians shooting upwards at that tower, is total NRA propaganda. Whitman just took cover, stuffed his rifle barrels out of the tower's rain spouts, and kept on killing people. Why not forego any further pimping of that myth, and just piss on the graves of Whitman's victims? One is as offensive as the other.....

[sarisataka]

57. The choice of the date is either

Blind stupidity of an asshole move. I have mu suspicion which is true.

However the statement that civilians helped save lives (a civilian even accompanied police into the tower) was made by the police officer who actually shot Whitman.

His statement has nothing to do with RKBA except to those view a successful armed self-defense as a threat to their extreme agenda. It is merely a statement of an opinion based on the observations of a contemporary.

Dismissing the actions of those who put their lives at risk to engage the shooter as an NRA myth is an insult to those who assisted in saving lives.

[Paladin]

62. I was in Austin that day, listening to KTBC Channel 7.

I heard the on-air pleas from Austin law enforcement for civilians to cease firing, because they were just making a bloody, confused situation worse with their efforts to help. And don't even try to deny that the pro-gun movement has co-opted the events from that tragic day in Austin for its own purposes, because I've seen evidence of it on numerous occasions over the years---several times here at DU.....

[MrScorpio]

63. Thank you. nt

[Skittles]

64. total gun humper history revision

the civilian guns made the situation even more hectic and confusing

[WillowTree]

74. They can't be forced to like guns, of course, but they may have to learn to tolerate them. Or quit.

[guillaumeb]

82. And also "tolerate" 30,000 gun deaths a year? The price of freedom?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. Do you intend to work this hard to reinstate the prohibition of alcohol?

Because the crime, disease and death associated with alcohol far outweighs the crime and death caused by guns.

[guillaumeb]

85. Alcohol is not "designed" to facilitate mass murder.

Guns are.

That seems to be an obvious difference between the two.

[beevul]

86. Neither are semi-auto civilian legal weapons.

Guns are.

No, they really aren't. In fact, they're designed specifically for the civilian market, having to meet strict standards of non-convertability to full automatic operation.

[guillaumeb]

89. An award for evading and avoiding. But no congratulations are due.

Q: What is the purpose of s high capacity magazine in a weapon?

A: To be able to shoot many times.

Q: What is the purpose of a gun?

A: To kill.

Q: So a gun with a high capacity magazine is designed to kill multiple times without reloading?

A: Yes.

I did the Q&A format to save the time of endless back and forth on the function of a gun.

[beevul]

95. As always, asking the wrong questions, in order to get the wrong answers.

Q: What is the purpose of a gun?

A: To kill.

That's the wrong question. We aren't talking about ALL guns. We're talking about civilian legal weapons in America.

The right question, is "What is the purpose of civilian legal weapons in America?"

The answer is: Lawful use.

I did the Q&A format to save the time of endless back and forth on the function of a gun.

No. You did the Q and A in order to presume for everyone else, myself included, what the right questions and answers are, as is typical so many in the gun control movement.

On edit: You claimed that "Alcohol is not "designed" to facilitate mass murder. Guns are."

And you were proven wrong where the gun is concerned.

[guillaumeb]

97. A high mark for evasion and avoidance.

Why the unease and refusal to admit the obvious?

Guns are designed to kill.

You can talk about lawful use and Second Amendment rights and whatever phraseology of avoidance that makes you feel better about guns, but the inescapable fact is that guns are designed to make killing easier.

Why do you avoid that?

If you carry a gun for self defense you are telling people that you are willing to use the gun for self defense. And that self defense might mean you will use that gun to kill someone. Once you strap on your weapon and carry it you set in train something that might end in the death of someone.

Of course if you have a gun in your house the odds favor a member of your household being killed with a gun but that is ignored by the gun obsessives because it contradicts what they desire to be correct.

[beevul]

144. Its only "obvious" to anti-gun idealogues.

Guns are designed to kill.

Civilian legal firearms are designed to accurately propel a round at a target of the users choosing. You get that, right? Bullets don't just home in on the nearest living heat source downrange...the user actually has to choose to aim and fire at a living target, which 99.9+ percent of gun owners (hunters excepted) do not do.

Anti-personnel mines are actually and truly meant to kill. They have no other purpose and no other use. You can't say that about civilian legal firearms and be factually correct. Sorry, you may wish it to be so, but reality is otherwise no matter how loud you stomp your feet or how long your tantrum lasts.

You can talk about lawful use and Second Amendment rights and whatever phraseology of avoidance that makes you feel better about guns, but the inescapable fact is that guns are designed to make killing easier.

And you can ignore lawful use and second amendment rights and whatever phraseology of otherization marginalization and demonization that makes you feel superior, as people like you have no choice but to do, but the inescapable fact is that it is up to the user as to whether and what a gun kills or not. Additionally, the great majority, 99.9x percent of guns in civilian possession are NOT used to kill anyone. With that in mind, your screed isn't just inaccurate, its also irrelevant.

If you carry a gun for self defense you are telling people that you are willing to use the gun for self defense.

I don't carry a gun nor do I have any desire to, but I'm certainly willing to use one in self defense, and I'd consider anyone that would rather face a potentially life threatening incident unarmed than defend themselves with a gun, the epitome of stupid. And people that would force that choice on others because they don't like guns, evil fits in there real close to the top in my opinion.

And that self defense might mean you will use that gun to kill someone.

It might, but that's not up to me. Its up to the person or thing presenting a legitimate threat, and whether they/it uses good sense and backs off. In my case, that other entity was a brazen pack of coyotes that wanted to eat my precious babies, and possibly get a taste of me too. I guess you think I should have gotten down on the ground, rolled over and showed them my belly, and let them have my babies and maybe some of my own flesh in the name of disarmament, right?

Fuck.That.Shit.

Once you strap on your weapon and carry it you set in train something that might end in the death of someone.

Nope. It isn't up to me whether another entity presents a threat that justifies a valid potentially lethal response.

Its up to that other entity.

Of course if you have a gun in your house the odds favor a member of your household being killed with a gun but that is ignored by the gun obsessives because it contradicts what they desire to be correct.

Bullshit. The odds favor nothing happening at all, as happens every single year among 100 million plus gun owning households (which itself contradicts what you seem to desire to be factually correct), but that's ignored by you because you hate guns, and you feel you have an ox to gore.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Keep those goal posts moving

Maintaining a prejudice towards an inanimate object is kind of silly.

My lineman's pliers weren't designed as hammer yet they are used as such now and then.

Fertilizer and fuel weren't designed as weapons either but they have been used to murder.

A gun is simple tool. If you believe anything about design can affect the deadliness of weapon (an improvised weapon or an item so designed) more than the person using said weapon, you're a simpler tool.

[guillaumeb]

90. Keep up the evasion and "explaining" that a gun is not designed to kill.

But it does make you look ridiculous to all but the gun-obsessed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Are you less dead when killed with baseball bat than a gun? n/t

[guillaumeb]

92. As I said, keep up the "explaining" and perhaps you can convince yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. Oh I'm convinced already

You're convincing everyone who can read English and sees this sub-thread.

[guillaumeb]

96. I hope that I am convincing the same readers.

The rest will keep arguing that a gun is not designed specifically to kill and hope to persuade others of this illogic.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. I've never worked for a small arms manufacturer

Since you, evidently, do or have, perhaps you could share or at least paraphrase some of the the scope, purpose and objectives sections for a firearm product design spec to which you were privy.

Put up or shut up.

Perhaps you've come upon this information somewhere else. Whatever; please share.

[guillaumeb]

103. Have you ever been a politician? If not do you have no right to a political opinion?

What is a gun designed to do?

A simple question that you avoid.

Does talk about killing make you uncomfortable?

Does talk about using a gun to kill make you uncomfortable?

Are you confident that you could use your weapon in self defense with the clear intent of killing?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. I look forward to continuing the discussion but life is calling

I'll get back to you.

[guillaumeb]

105. And winning the GOLD Medal for avoidance is..........

the winner will be announced later.

[Duckhunter935]

107. He went over to the safe haven and is complaining

Sad they have to go to a place knowing they can't be responded too. His post does not even pass the SOP over there but I know the hosts will not enforce it.

[guillaumeb]

115. What are guns designed to do?

And my post is currently open for responses, as well as in accord with the SOP. Which is also available for inspection.

[Duckhunter935]

118. Fire a projectile out the barrel of the weapon

The operator of the firearm is responsible for where that projectile goes. Many are used strictly for target shooting like mine are.

So name the part of your post that fits the SOP in that group.

[guillaumeb]

119. I would suggest rereading the SOP.

So a gun is designed to fire a projectile. What is the point of firing the projectile?

Is it to hit something, or someone? Or perhaps to enjoy the loud noise?

You are a target shooter. Are your weapons designed to kill?

[Duckhunter935]

122. Only my military specification bolt action rifles.

As they were designed from the start as military weapons. I am glad to revise that to shooting at paper plates.

Nice deflection, did not think you could point to the relevant section on how your post fits that SOP.

[guillaumeb]

126. Yes, we both agree that military style weapons are obviously designed for one purpose.

As to how my post fits, the final decision on that is, I believe, up to the host.

But the SOP states:

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

Part of a supportive environment is establishing and framing an argument. And part of a discussion, a major part, is realizing what exactly is being argued. Given the extreme reluctance of some of the gun enthusiasts to answer the question of what a gun is designed to do tells me that some gun enthusiasts do not want to discuss killing.

But killing is what a gun is designed to do. So when gun enthusiasts talk about what is lawful, what is currently allowed, terms like self defense are frequently used, but it is a self defense without any admitted consequences.

My post is designed to force the issue of the essential nature of guns to the front of the discussion. I stated that every time a gun owner carries a gun in public, the first thought should be that the owner is ready to kill. Otherwise why carry the gun at all?

[Duckhunter935]

127. Even self defense is not killing

It is about stopping the threat. This is thought in virtually every firearms self defense course. The last option is to actually fire the weapon and even then not to kill, only stop the threat. And yes, the consequences are thoroughly explained.

[guillaumeb]

134. Self defense does not always require killing.

But the option is available and making that option possible is the gun. It is what the gun is designed to do. It is the only thing the gun is designed to do.

Thoughts on the SOP/my post?

[Duckhunter935]

137. I do not think it does

But it is up to the hosts like you said. Those same hosts that blocked at least to for self deleted that were up for less than s minute. They were blocked due to a post that just said self delete, lol.

[guillaumeb]

139. I am currently blocked from one forum.

I think blocking and "ignoring" are counterproductive. If someone wants to call me an idiot I would rather see it. Sometimes they are correct. But here, even though we obviously disagree on many (perhaps all) gun issues the discussion can be interesting.

HAVE a nice night.

[Duckhunter935]

142. You too, have a great night

[beevul]

146. You continue to be wrong. Its beginning to look habitual.

As to how my post fits, the final decision on that is, I believe, up to the host.

No. The host in GCRA simply decides if the post is allowed to stand or not, regardless of whether it fits the SOP or not.

I know from experience. I'm blocked for a self-deleted post, deleted about 6 seconds after it was posted, the content of which was NEVER seen by the host, to judge whether it followed the SOP as written or not.

Given the extreme reluctance of some of the gun enthusiasts to answer the question of what a gun is designed to do tells me that some gun enthusiasts do not want to discuss killing.

Its not a matter of our reluctance to answer your question, its a matter of your refusal to accept our answer.

You've been answered at least 3 times in this thread , that civilian legal firearms are designed to accurately propel a projectile at a target of the users choosing.

You refuse to accept that answer. That's not on us, that's on you.

[beevul]

145. "What is the point of firing the projectile?"

That s determined by the user at the time of use, not by the gun when its designed, as is the case for all civilian legal firearms.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. Wow, you'd think after winning a gold medal they'd let you make a speech

Oh... I am but in written form.

What is a gun designed to do?

A simple question that you avoid.

This is the first time you've asked me that question. I have not been avoiding it. Stop making stuff up. I replied to a sub-thread here where you made the claim that "guns where designed to kill". I'm pointing out that you have neither proven nor defended that assertion. You've only repeated it and ask others to prove it wrong.

Does talk about killing make you uncomfortable?

No, I guess I'm used to it.

Does talk about using a gun to kill make you uncomfortable?

No. OTOH talk about using vinyl siding to kill would make me curious.

Are you confident that you could use your weapon in self defense with the clear intent of killing?

I'm not sure to which weapon you refer. I don't currently own a gun. I've never carried a firearm for self-defense. I've never trained for self-defense using a firearm. No, I am completely unprepared to use a firearm for self-defense and would only do so as a last resort. My firearm experience is limited to competitive rifle shooting for sport on a controlled closed range. I have no plans to spend the money nor the precious time to learn firearm self-defense, nor will I be buying a handgun.

I am confident about using other weapons for self-defense.

A side note: I do appreciate the respect you've shown in replying and discussing the issues.

[guillaumeb]

129. First, my apologies. That question was first directed to another poster.

But keep the medal anyway. (As long as you do not vandalize a washroom and then claim to be a victim.)

Target shooting is a skill that would easily translate to killing people in the sense of the skill required, if not the mindset.

But rifles were not designed to shoot targets, they were specifically designed to shoot people or animals. They are killing tools.

[Duckhunter935]

132. So Olympic firearms are only designed to kill people

Or animals? And they are training to kill people?

[guillaumeb]

135. Guns are designed to kill.

And the skill set learned can be applied or transferred from targets to humans.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. apologies unnecessary... seems to be a misunderstanding

I infer the washroom/victim reference has some olympic context.

Target shooting is a skill that would easily translate to killing people in the sense of the skill required, if not the mindset.

Somewhat but targets don't move and humans seldom remain still. I don't believe I have anywhere near the skill required to be a sniper.

But rifles were not designed to shoot targets, they were specifically designed to shoot people or animals.

Some were indeed designed to shoot targets.

They are killing tools.

You continue to make that claim but offer no proof. I'm simply pointing out the breakdown in your argument.

[guillaumeb]

141. The reference was to the olympic swimmer. Lochte?

Could your target rifle be used to kill someone? If yes, it is different in design and designed function from a sniper rifle, but ultimately guns were designed to kill, not to shoot targets. That is merely an offshoot, a side purpose. While a screwdriver can be used as a small pry bar, no one would ask for a phillips head pry bar at the tool store.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. "Could your target rifle be used to kill someone?"

That is my point. Many things can be used as weapons and used to kill. Fixating on the intent of the inventor or latest developer/engineer to work on the item is not near as important as focusing on the intent of the individual holding it.

There is this saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." It is the nature of life to adapt and overcome a hostile environment. Intelligent life is able to reason and improvise. Using a flat head screwdriver as a chisel is less than ideal but will often get the job done.

The evil and the crime is the act not the weapon of choice. There is no shortage of weapons due to the ability of intelligent to adapt and improvise. A true solution to crime begins with evaluating the motives. Killing is not in all cases evil. Self-defense, the defense of one's own life, arises from basic right to life of every one of us.

[Duckhunter935]

130. It is refreshing to see respectful

Discussion and not the normal insults. I too, thank that poster for that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

133. Bravo...

...

[guillaumeb]

136. Insults are pointless.

I hope that I am civil in my comments, but I sometimes fall short. When I do, it is my fault.

[Duckhunter935]

138. That is a refreshing view

I am not always perfect in that respect as well. But many on the pro control side seem to mainly post insults, sexual references or penis jokes directed at firearms owners.

[pablo_marmol]

99. Ah yes -- the ever infantile "Guns Are Designed To Kill" "argument".

"Guns are designed to kill."

Well, then I guess we should all be pleased that SO FEW are actually *used* for what they're designed for, yes? YES?!

Fewer than 2% of all handguns......and fewer than 1% of all guns will ever be used in violent crime.* (Note that I said 'violent crime' and not homicide!) But let's not let facts get in the way of a good moral poutrage, eh? The 'Guns Are Designed To Kill' "argument" is an infantile little red herring -- insidiously designed to keep the gun restriction/gun rights debate mired in emotion-based poop slinging. Heaven forbid we seek to elevate the discussion desiring conversation that produces light rather than heat! Heaven forbid we maintain "liberal consistency" and focus on actual data! Worst of all, the GADTK "argument" demonstrates how little gun restriction supporters actually care about the victims of gun violence -- attempting to debase the debate as they SO OBVIOUSLY do. In puking forth this ridiculous piffle they also demonstrate that "gun control" isn't at all about saving lives -- it's about the need to exert authoritarian control. For The Controllers this has become a pissing contest that they (foolishly) think they're going to win.

Of all of the intellectually lazy, moronic, dishonest and infantile "arguments" The Controllers puke out, the GADTK "argument" resides near, or at the summit.

*http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

[guillaumeb]

100. If you persist in the nonsense that a gun is not designed to kill,

please enlighten us "controllers" as to what exactly the function of a gun is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. The assertion that 'guns were designed to kill' was yours

Defend it with some proof. Criminology and firearms law shouldn't be a faith based area of discussion.

[pablo_marmol]

149. As I *CLEARLY* stated -- it matters *NOT A BIT* what a gun is designed for.

Yours is a transparent, infantile, dishonest distraction from what guns are actually used for --- which in the vast majority of cases is punching holes in targets. Your dodging and tap-dancing are really quite pathetic.

Toothbrushes are designed to clean teeth. Have I committed some sort of foul if I use an old toothbrush to clean the rails of my shower door assembly? Are human beings disallowed from using consumer products in manners for which they are not "designed"?

[pablo_marmol]

150. Bears repeating.........

Of all of the intellectually lazy, moronic, dishonest and infantile "arguments" The Controllers puke out, the GADTK "argument" resides near, or at the summit.

[pablo_marmol]

152. Let's see if you have the character to answer two *very* simple questions.

Question being: What's your point? Why are you so singularly focused on the 'Guns are Designed to Kill' "argument"? How does it advance your argument(s) for stricter gun laws? Here.........lemme guess your thought process:

Guns are designed to kill. Ergo, guns are evil. Since guns are evil, it would be immoral not to pursue restricting their numbers.

Essentially, yours is a religious argument -- though you most certainly will deny it.

Edited to add second question:

Why are you trivializing the lives of those who have died to gun violence by asking pointless questions? If you truly cared about the victims of gun violence you'd be asking questions like.......

What can we do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - who commit the vast majority of gun mayhem?

Since 2/3 of all gun homicides are suicides, what can we do to reach out to those who feel hopeless?

What can we do to bring an end to the "War on Drugs" which results in so many gun deaths?

Your obvious and insidious distraction/diversion proves that you really don't care at all about the victims of gun violence.

[guillaumeb]

160. I counted four question marks, thus four questions.

But since you still have not answered my one question, that begs the question of why?

Why do some gun enthusiasts refuse to answer a very simple question about the essential purpose of a gun? This question is not pointless because avoidance and evasion of this purpose makes it far easier for people to carry guns. Stating that "I am carrying for protection" or "what I am doing is lawful carry" are stock phrases that leave out the possible result of that carrying.

What should be said is: "I am carrying for protection and to demonstrate to others that I am willing to kill if I deem it necessary. Say it because it is implicit in the act that you are engaging in. Admit that you are carrying with intent to kill.

As to "trivializing the lives ...etc" I have read numerous responses at DU from gun enthusiasts that try to state that suicide is not a gun homicide. A blatant attempt to trivialize suicide as a way of minimalizing gun deaths.

Again, still waiting for your response as to the essential function of a gun. (Cue Jeopardy waiting theme music)

[pablo_marmol]

170. I have no problem answering your question, though I doubt you'll respond to mine.

Why do some gun enthusiasts refuse to answer a very simple question about the essential purpose of a gun?

Because as I've already CLEARLY stated, the question is a useless and disingenuous one. Your refusal to actually read responses to your posts destroys your credibility. Would you respond to me if I asked you why the moon was made of cheese? But despite the fact that you've asked a question which debases the gun rights/"gun control" debate, I'll respond anyway.

The essential purpose of a gun is no different from the essential purpose of all weapons that came before it. All weapons have the capacity to be used in an offensive or defensive manner. Example:

Let's imagine that a pre-historic tribe wants to dislodge another tribe from prime hunting land. They launch an offensive with the weapons available at the time --- clubs and stones. The tribe occupying the land fights back ---- with clubs and stones . One side is the aggressor.......the other, the defender. Would you demonize clubs and stones as you obviously demonize guns? And if so, which tribe deserves your contempt?

Our military uses the relatively under-powered 5.56 NATO round ---- which is just as apt to wound as it is to kill. So technically speaking, even our military uses weapons/ammo that are not "designed to kill"..........because if killing was the motive they would have stuck with the more powerful ammunition previously used.

Further.........civilized societies recognize the principle of justifiable homicide. So why do you keep harping on the 'designed to kill' theme when killing in self-defense isn't even considered a crime?

Your strategy in persisting in this line of conversation is as transparent as it is dishonorable. What you are clearly attempting to accomplish is:

1) Demonizing guns, so as to (dishonestly) make gun ownership appear to be an "immoral" option, (non-option) and.......
2) As I've state earlier, you obviously need to toss out red herrings, and keep the conversation mired in the realm of the emotion rather than the intellectual.

It's really astonishing to me that you persist with this strategy which has been a TOTAL FAILURE for over two decades now. Pew research has demonstrated that more citizens now believe that gun rights trump "gun control" --- and the dishonest tactics of yourself and others have led to this change of heart.

So now I'm fully prepared for more of your soft-shoe, and avoidance of the questions I've posed to you. "Fire away".

[Marengo]

179. Speaking of unanswered questions, there are quite a few awaiting for your reply.

[beevul]

147. A very apt description. N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. There are several flaws with your argument.

First, alcohol is directly linked to numerous social ills such as rape, murder, assault, disease, sexual abuse, domestic violence, etc. Yet, it's "design" is recreational. The social ills linked to alcohol effect millions every year. Alcohol kills enough underaged drinkers to equal nearly 4 Sandy Hook tragedies every week.

For something designed to be recreational it has a pretty steep cost.

Second, if guns are designed to commit mass slaughter then they are safer even with such a design, than recreational drinking.

Third, if guns are designed for nothing but mass murder than you have some explaining to do as to why law enforcement, particularly those who will enforce guns laws, are armed with guns. By your own rules you appear to be advocating for the mass murder of people exercising their rights.

[guillaumeb]

112. Since we are pointing out flaws,

while alcohol kills it is not manufactured to kill. Guns are manufactured fro one specific purpose. To facilitate killing.

Your final argument is unsupported by anything that I said. English police do jut fine even though the great majority are unarmed. But how you arrive at a conclusion like: "By your own rules you appear to be advocating for the mass murder of people exercising their rights." is beyond my comprehension.

And the inescapable fact is that guns are not designed to hammer nails, or hold open doors, or hold down papers, or serve as anchors. They are designed to kill people. And guns with removable, large capacity magazines are designed to kill numbers of people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. British police still possess and employ firearms.

Including weapons with detachable magazines. Yet, they do not commit mass murderer, the same as hundreds of millions of gun owners.

[guillaumeb]

114. Which does not actually negate anything that I said.

What are guns designed to do?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. If guns are designed for mass murder why do the police possess them?

[guillaumeb]

117. My question to you was:

what are guns designed to do?

I already gave my answer here and in another post, titled, guns are designed to kill.

So what, in your view, is the purpose of a gun?

You have the floor.

[Duckhunter935]

120. Accurately fire a projectile safely where pointed

It is up to the operator to aim the weapon in a safe direction. If weapons are only designed to kill, mine are broken as well as hundreds of millions of others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. You wrote in Post #85 that guns are designed for mass murder. That means your

gun control proposals are based on the threat of mass murder.

This is the only conclusion based on your characterization of guns. You obviously refuse to accept the idea that guns could have any positive purpose but you neglect the fact your law enforcers employ -- rely upon -- the very thing you have deemed irredeemably evil.

But if you were to accept guns could have a good purpose then you will find yourself demanding people be denied a good thing.

This is your moral conundrum.

[guillaumeb]

123. I previously wrote that detachable, large capacity magazines...etc

So that was my statement. You still have not answered the question. At least you are consistent in avoiding the question, but why?

What are guns designed to do? Is that question too difficult or is the answer to revealing?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

131. I am granting your premise for the sake of discussion. It is you who avoids the

conclusions of your own declarations.

If you fear your own moral decrees there is no reason for me to embrace them.

[beevul]

148. Ouch.

[pablo_marmol]

157. Bravo! NT

[Duckhunter935]

124. That stings just a bit, lol

[pablo_marmol]

153. And our question to you is "Why do you ask"? How does your question advance the dialog?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028104872#post152

[pablo_marmol]

154. And our collective answer to you - if I may be so presume to speak for others, is......

You're asking a dishonest question, designed to keep the discussion mired in an emotional gutter rather than the intellectual plane.

[pablo_marmol]

156. Why are you trivializing the lives of gun violence victims by asking pointless questions? NT

[pablo_marmol]

171. Folks have a tendency to ignore unproductive questions. Deal with it. NT

[JonathanRackham]

158. Is alcohol an Olympic sport?

Shooting sports are.

Alcohol and firearms both require a maturity level.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. May I just comment that this gun culture we have in the United States is fucking nuts.

That is all.

[HerrKarlMarx]

87. Are there any other countries in the world where they have these conversations?

An honest question. I doubt anybody has to worry about campus carry in France or Japan.

[6chars]

106. Good news everyone. You all get an A!

[bagelsforbreakfast]

128. can the headline...

"Shootout in Texas Classroom" be far away?

[Duckhunter935]

143. Well, I am sure we see them all the time

From the other states that have allowed that for years now

[ManiacJoe]

172. Do they fear armed staff members that much?

Concealed carry is about the staff members, not the students.
Concealed carry requires one to be 21 years old. Of the traditional students, that would be the oldest half of the senior class.

[Dustlawyer]

176. Glad my last two kids graduated from UT this last May!

[friendly_iconoclast]

180. UPDATE: Their virtue signalling has come to naught:

U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172198417

[jmg257]

181. Makes sense - Courts often defer to the legislative efforts when laws are constitutional.

“In the context of firearm regulation, the legislature is ‘far better equipped than the judiciary’ to make sensitive policy judgments (within constitutional limits) concerning the dangers in carrying firearms and the manner to combat those risks.”


Works both ways.

[beevul]

182. "Or else" what? N/T