How many shootings at school will it take?

[Turbo Teg]

With all the recent shootings on campus I hope America decides to wake up and change things for once! Hopefully they'll understand that stupid "Weapon Free" or "gun free" zone signs mean NOTHING! I'm hoping that people, mainly lawmakers, pull thier head out of thier 4th point of contact and finaly let students aswell as teachers who have concealed carry licenses carry thier weapons into the classroom and take resoponsablity for thier own safety.
The fact that I have to take my gun off and leave it in my car because I'm going to school is utterly rediculous. I'm a responsable adult when walking around at the mall, or going to a movie, but when it's time to go to school, I'm a little kid that can't be trusted to not shoot the teacher and everybody else for getting a C on a report. Just ludacris. The fact that anyone thinks that the police are going to be around to protect you, or you should just cower in a closet or under a desk and call the authorities and hope for the best is a completely foreign idea to me.

I'm hoping that if schools and other establishments that still want to ban weapons or concealed carry will have to abide by a new set of requirements, such as; Metal detectors and armed guards at every enterance point. Armed escorts to and from the vehicle for those that want one. They should also be held more liable for violent crimes that happen on thier campus or establishment, especially if the person who it happend to was a CCL holder and disarmed at the time do to said establishments policy of no weapons.

For me right now, I will no longer leave my gun in my vehicle. Untill they do a better job of securing the school, and I get ready to walk through the doors and have to go through a metal detector with police or other security personel, I will keep my Glock 27 strapped to my ankle. Since there are no security measures in place, this won't be a problem for me, and no one will ever know, unless I need it. At that point, I'm sure my classmates will be very happy to be in the same room as the good guy fighting for his life aswell as everyone elses. I'm doing it for the Children. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

[rurallib]

1. Until someone who has an impact has a child shot

My experience always tells me that people don't act until it affects them directly. So when someone named Bush or Cheney etc. gets shot, not much really happens.

[Spoonman]

5. You might not have thought that through

So when someone named Bush or Cheney etc. gets shot, not much really happens.

:toast: There might be a few celebrations.

[YDogg]

2. what school do you attend?

[Turbo Teg]

4. One

that doesn't have any real security in place.

[L1A1Rocker]

8. Sounds like the University I went too

We had campus police but the mostly handed out parking tickets and attended class. Yep that's right, attended class. They got a tuition discount, so what we had was students working as security personnel. That does put armed folks in the classroom but not nearly enough.

[Spoonman]

3. Damn straight!!!!

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!!!

pull thier head out of thier 4th point of contact

Airborne! hoowaa!!!

[L1A1Rocker]

6. I agree 1000%

Gun free zones are nothing but Free Kill Zones. Why is the solution always MORE of the same failed gun control.

A definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over expecting a different result.


It is time for a new plan we know what happens under to old one. Let those capable and willing have the most effective means to protect themselves. Those that do not will reap the benefit of those that do.

[Indy Lurker]

7. Change is very slow

Here in Illinois, they didn't even allow the security guards at the state capital to be armed until one was killed in 2004 by a shotgun wielding crazy.



"A man stepped inside the Capitol in Springfield, shot a security guard to death, then rushed out and drove off, the authorities said. The shooting sent state workers running into offices, where they waited behind locked doors for nearly an hour. The Legislature was not in session, and Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat, was not in the capital, 200 miles southwest of Chicago. The authorities were searching for a man they identified as Derek W. Potts, 24, who they said had been involved in an attempted armed robbery at a nearby military surplus store. Mr. Potts was charged with murder and burglary."

ON EDIT:

Of course the important people have protection 24/7.

"Blagojevich's own State Police contingent of 15 would not be paid for out of his office budget. Blagojevich ordered an end to overtime for his detail, which could save nearly $500,000."

[HiDemGunOwner]

9. Liability...

As you mentioned, we should push for absolute liability for the facilities that refuse to allow CCW holders to carry on campus. If the schools realize that they will be legally, and hence financially liable for any shooting instances, maybe they will see the light...either that or they will have to devise some "foolproof" means to protect the students.

[Wickerman]

10. Good idea - only follow laws you agree with

:thumbsup:

[L1A1Rocker]

11. Call it civil disobedience

[Wickerman]

12. foolishly call it what you want

It gives gunners a bad name and removes any degree of trust from those masses that aren't as "enthusiastic" towards personal weaponry as you.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. Thank you

I'm a big fan of Ralph Waldo Emerson. We have no duty to obey an illegal law. That is the rational behind jury nullification. I have every right to challenge the legality of the law in court.

[Wickerman]

14. wow, what a martyr - sneaking around with your illegal gun

just hoping to get busted so you can what, represent yourself in court? Impressive. A self-styled rebel, like Randy Weaver, the Michigan Militia, Dave Koresh.

Yep, those wonderful patriots who've done so much to further cause of gun rights. They didn't believe in the laws as written and decided to live by their own standards. Great company.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. It is odd to see a moderator using such harsh language and making unfounded assertions.

I would appreciate you toning down the rhetoric. As a moderator you should be above such antics. Now I'll answer you in an adult manner.

wow, what a martyr - sneaking around with your illegal gun
Posted by Wickerman
just hoping to get busted so you can what, represent yourself in court? Impressive. A self-styled rebel, like Randy Weaver, the Michigan Militia, Dave Koresh.

Yep, those wonderful patriots who've done so much to further cause of gun rights. They didn't believe in the laws as written and decided to live by their own standards. Great company.


"wow, what a martyr - sneaking around with you ellegal gun."
I do not meet the definition of martyr. Your hyperbole is misplaced.

I do not "sneak" around while carrying a concealed handgun. I walk in the open daylight and stay within lite areas when dark. I go shopping, to the DVD store and elsewhere just as you. There is no "sneaking" about.

My firearm (gun is not the correct term) is not an "ellegal". It was purchased from a licensed 03 FFL dealer.


That was just your post title. Now on to the post
"just hoping to get busted so you can what, represent yourself in court? Impressive. A self-styled rebel, like Randy Weaver, the Michigan Militia, Dave Koresh."

You make another incorrect assertion: I'm am not hoping to get busted. I'm am taking personal responsibility for my own safety and well being.

You make another incorrect assertion: If ever charged with a crime I do not intend to represent myself in court. It is well know that that is a foolish proposal. Surly a moderator would not be implying such without any evidence?

You make another incorrect assertion: I am not "A self-styled rebel" (now this borders on a DU rules violation here) I am a plain everyday guy that goes about doing everyday things. I do not do anything to be either "self-styled" nor to be a "rebel" What a disingenuous statement for a moderator to make.

You make another incorrect assertion: I am not a separatist as Randy Weaver; I am not a member of the Michigan Militia; and I am not a religious zealot as David Koresh. Please do not compare me to such. As a moderator that is very unbecoming of you to such.


Please, as a moderator I feel it is your responsibility to refrain from hyperbole and rhetoric that only inflames a touchy topic. I find very disturbing to be counseling a moderator for undertaking activities that moderators themselves normally have to counsel members for. Very disturbing indeed.

Sincerely,


L1A1

[SecularNATION]

19. "Very disturbing indeed" Indeed...

...and Wickerman, WTF is a "gunner"?

[Wickerman]

21. it stands to reason that since antigunners are referred to as such

wouldn't an enthusiast be a gunner?

edited for clarity

[SteveM]

26. I don't agree with the tone of Wickerman in his post, but "gunner"...

...is used up North (and perhaps elsewhere) to refer to duck hunters, and "gunning" is used in place of "hunter" in that regard. I was raised in Florida where the term "gunner" is not generally used.

[Wickerman]

20. if you have a complaint about my moderation I ask you to take it to Admin

Hit alert and it will be dealt with by someone other than myself.


I stand by statement that if you persist to carry in places that prohibit carry you place yourself in the company of Randy Weaver, David Koresh and the Michigan Militia, all folk who disagreed with gun laws and gave gun enthusiasts a black eye that will take many moons to erase from the collective memory of those in the US who aren't as open to your ideas of self-protection.

[Spoonman]

29. Let's be honest here.......

Your comparison of L1A1R to these individuals and organizations is a stretch.

Now while I personally think Randy Weaver was a neo-nazi, no proof of that exists.

His situation was created by his refusal to cooperate with law enforcement in the execution of a lawful warrant for his arrest.

David Koresh was a mental case, he was in total violation of multiple federal laws and not a local ordinance. He too refused to comply with law enforcement in the execution of a warrant.

The Michigan Militia declares that the same results as the above two will result if any attempt is made to enforce laws upon them, and they border on armed insurrection.

L1A1 makes no declaration that he will resist with force if questioned or stopped. There has been no "over my dead body", "pried from my cold dead fingers" assertion made.

Your attempt to associate him with those individuals and groups is what I commonly see referred to here as a Benchlyism.

It is an attempt to associate his acts or beliefs with the those on the most extreme fringe of this issue, thereby rendering his ideology as extreme or without merit.

A Benchlyism does not support ones assertion or statement, but conversely discredits it.

L1A1 wants nothing more to increase his odds of survival should anything happen on campus, the same as I did when I attended the University of Houston.

I carried a 9mm in my backpack EVERY day for six years, and never got into a gunfight with law enforcement. I was not, am not, and never will be "in the company of Randy Weaver, David Koresh and the Michigan Militia ".
And I feel confident in believing L1A1 will never be either.

[Wickerman]

30. My point, which appears to have been lost by some

extreme hyperbole on my part, is that we should not only be honest, but also law abiding. If not, the public at large sees only the "gun nut" characticture, not the person L1A1 would like to be seen as. When a person illegally carries a weapon it only reinforces stereotypes that none of us want perpetuated.

I respectively submit that those who do not follow the law of the land as written, when caught, further support the image of gun enthusiasts as extreme, much as the company I previously cited.

Further, DU will in no way condone or otherwise support via member postings the unlawful use or carry of a weapon. Let that be perfectly clear. You may disagree with the laws as written, but you only harm your own cause if you (generic you, all across this statement) state that you will carry contrary to local laws.

[jody]

31. I just read this thread and I agree 100% with Wickerman. I've been a DU participant for a long time

and IMO Wickerman has done an outstanding job as moderator.

Wickerman's comments about pro-RKBA types threatening to break or actually breaking the law hits dead center in the X ring.

:toast: to Wickerman for a job well done. Atta Boy :thumbsup:

[Wickerman]

32. To be fair

I don't regret my choice of words earlier, Jody, but I do regret the way I arranged them! Had I written my comments more effeciently and not allowed myself to be pissed off that folks were misusing DU to advertise their illegal behavior I might have avoided some controversy.

Thanks anyway, Jody. It's a pleasure to read your commentary and watch you take that extra effort to stay above the fray and be willing to explore some middle ground. Here's one for you. :beer:

[L1A1Rocker]

37. To be fair? What a choice of words there

"I don't regret my choice of words earlier" nice to know that upon further reflection you still are convinced that violation of DU rules is OK. I guess it's ok if only you do it?



"Had I written my comments more effeciently and not allowed myself to be pissed off" perhaps this is an admission that you do not have the temperament to "moderate" a board that, by it's very nature, often has controversial subject matter?



"might have avoided some controversy." Is that euphemism speak for flame baiting?

[L1A1Rocker]

36. So now flame baiting = extreme hyperbole?

Thank you for the clarification. But your attempt to justify your blatant flam baiting falls far short.

You state "DU will in no way condone or otherwise support via member postings the unlawful use or carry of a weapon." So is it in your official capacity your job to engage in flame baiting? So it is OK to violate DU rules if you are a moderator? Who watches the watchers I wonder.

[Wickerman]

38. I do no such flam baiting

You alerted, I wasn't involved in discussion, and it was not deemed to be a violation of DU rules. If you care to take it further up the foodchain, feel free, but its no longer appropriate to personally attack me in forum.

I am allowed to participate in DU threads and I chose to respond in manner that you took exception to. You made some claims that I disagreed with and I responded as a user, taking offense to the image that you cast on DU and to those who carry weapons. I regret that my message was lost on you because you took exception to my tone, but it was not flamebait and your post is still not a positive reflection on those who are responsible gunowners.

[L1A1Rocker]

39. I disagree

You yourself stated that your inital responce to me was made while you were "pissed". You made outragious assertions that had no truth to them. It is my openion that a person that lashes out as you did does not have the proper temperment to be a moderator as you showed little moderation in your remarks.

[L1A1Rocker]

34. Thank you

spoonerman for your words. You very eloquently said what emotion did not allow me to. Unfortunately I do not believe that Wickerman's is concerned with honesty. His blatant flame baiting of me precludes any honesty. Or pretext there of.

Again,


Thank you

[L1A1Rocker]

33. It's not your "moderation" I object too but the lack there of.

The moniker of "moderator" sets that individual apart. A moderator is the voice of reason. It is the job of a "moderator" to, get this now, moderate. It is not the job of the moderator to be antagonistic or to engage in flame baiting.

Very disappointing.

[Spoonman]

35. You did make the statement

that you intended to break the law.
I cannot be hypocritical by saying you shouldn't. I did the same thing.

I believe Wickerman was trying to convince you (not in a manner I approved of) (then again, who the fuck am I) to not be so brazen in your declaration of intent. That is his job.

[L1A1Rocker]

40. He is free to make recomendations

as you have stated. But to do so in such an outragious mannor shows a lack of temperment. I have been in nurmous boards before and see many moderators doing just that. However, they take the root word of "moderate" to heart. They are (and should be) the voice of reason when people become unreasonable. It is my assertion that his comments and false assertions were unreasonable. It is very disturbing to me when a moderator requires moderation himself.

[Turbo Teg]

18. Actually,

I don't sneak around, and nobody else I know who carrys at places that prohibit concealed carry do any sneaking either. Since it's CONCEALED CARRY nobody ever knows, so there is no need to sneak! LOL. As for my guns bieng illegal, they're not. One was purchased from an FFL dealer, and one was obtained legally through a gun show.

[Wickerman]

22. if guns are illegal on your campus and you carry it on campus

it is then an illegal gun. If you conceal it to carry it on to campus when it is illegal to carry it on to campus then you are sneaking about with your gun.

We can argue semantics all you want, but when or if discovered good luck with jury nullification. And, think a bit about that great example for "the kids" you illegally carry for.Only obey the laws you want. I hope not. That gives gun owners everywhere a bad name.

[Turbo Teg]

23. I'm not out to

be any type of example. I'm just taking responsablity for myself. As far as Randy Weaver and David Koresh go, Randy Weaver only violated the law after repeated asking by undercover ATF agents (who originaly wanted Weaver to spy on a white supremisist group, but weaver declined) which to me would be entrapment. As far as Koresh went, I believe that they originaly trying to arrest him for some sort of child abuse, not weapons. Also, I don't have any real problem with your moderation, I'm always up for a friendly debate.

[Wickerman]

24. Thanks, since we can debate here and you aren't going to pull the mod card

puzzle this for me.

One day you are sitting in class and let's just say you carry in an ankle holster. For some reason your trouser leg hikes up and exposes your holster. The cute little Freshman in your econ class sees it and panics. Guns aren't allowed on campus so you must be one of those crazed gunmen. She steps out of class and calls security. Security isn't set to deal with something like this. As has been said, they are students themselves, mostly. They call city police. Police aren't going to be caught under-prepared so they tell campus to shut down. Send out the alerts of gunman on campus. A SWAT team is assembled and descends on the building in which your econ class is situated.

I'm not sure how the situation would play out from there but you've wasted a lot of taxpayer money minimally, your school's time and resources tremendously, and if the police are as under-trained as is so often touted down here then you have placed yourself and those around you at tremendous risk.

My argument is that if you carry illegally in heightened tension times you will be dealt with extreme prejudice and also will most likely place those "kids" you mention wanting to do it for at great risk. Doesn't seem right. Even if you don't agree with a law you can't go off and do as you please - you work from within to change the law.


edited for mistakes that I should have proof read for.

[ac2007]

25. You are correct

I agree with everything you say.

A conscious decision to knowingly violate a law you feel is wrong takes great courage. The response you describe is quite likely. And it would be deserve. Anyone contemplating carrying concealing in violation of the law must be prepared to accept the risk.

For those who do: As a gun owner and rights supporter, you aren't doing us any favors. The media will spin this and if you are caught, your actions will play right into the gun controllers hands. What may be a tactical victory personally for you in doing can cause long-term strategic harm to the restoration of our rights.

However, I understand why you would do it. I would advise you not to do so. If you do, make damn sure that your weapon is well concealed against accidental display or detection through normal observation.

This act of civil disobedience would be justified if your illegal carry results in you stopping the next NIU. Then you will be judged by 12 (hopefully) for your illegal act. You may do damage to gun rights and it is almost a certainty that you will lose your guns rights legally forever. The justified use of an illegally carried firearm, even if it saves lives, is still a crime. Even if acquitted, you will still lose in the end. Financially and legally at a minimum.

Work from within. It takes a long time but what worked for bringing these laws into existence are the same mechanisms we can hope will help us roll them back.

[SteveM]

27. My reading of "civil disobedience" doesn't include Koresh & Co....

The key to exercising civil disobedience is to violate the law, and if arrested, willingly accept the consequences of arrest and any punishment which might ensue. No shoot-outs, stand-your-ground, etc. To resist arrest, especially with violence, is not civil disobedience.

While there are some scary hypos which may come from ankle-watching (how Victorian of us!), those who wish to carry concealed where it is currently outlawed must be willing to accept arrest and punishment, for this is the theory and practice of civil disobedience from Thoreau, through Gandhi, up to King.

The problem, seemingly technical, is that civil disobedience invariably requires public violation of the law or the effect of CD as a tactic will not be realized. How can this be done when one is carrying concealed? I suggest a compromise. Do what some folks are going to do at Texas State University (San Marcos) and other institutions, in April: openly wear holsters, including those normally worn under garments, sans gun, to DEMONSTRATE your position. While technically not a violation of the law, perhaps the same effect can be achieved. No doubt there will be some nasty public reactions, but no one ever said civil disobedience was a romantic walk in the park.

Edited for spelling and content.

[Wickerman]

28. your example of civil disobedience is much more reflective of a my

understanding of productive civil disobedience. Daily and willful violation the law of the land because you don't agree with it is not in itself CD. Good post.

[Turbo Teg]

16. Sorry,

I don't follow laws that will put my life in danger. If you don't want to carry a gun, then that's ok, I don't really care what happens to you, but I won't put my life at risk.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. That's what it comes down to.

I will trust to jury nullification myself.

[albert johnson]

41. THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW,RIGHT OR WRONG

if a person doesnt know the difference they shouldnt be allowed outside till they do,if ever.if only everyone knew the difference it would be impossible to have bad laws or people to enforce them.