Why are Republicans pushing guns onto the college campuses?

[Joanne98]

One thing I don't like about being a Democrat is that our side is constantly getting railroaded. I feel like I belong to the Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football party!

From the minute the shooting happened we started complaining about the WRONG THING!

We focused on the language, like a bunch of spelling bee queens, and IGNORED the REASON they were carrying guns and using the language in the first place!

As you remember, the minute Obama was sworn in, the right started demanding to carry their guns everywhere, including political rallies. They said they were doing it because Obama was going to try and take their guns away. This, of course, was a LIE! The pathological LIARS on the right had another entirely different reason for carrying their guns around. It was only for....

INTIMIDATION!

INTIMIDATE the left!

Focusing on language and not the motive is a mistake!

Another mistake was not focusing on the order of events!

FIRST Sarah Palin told everyone in the country that Obama was trying to KILL their children and their parents with DEATH panels! THEN she put the targets up!

The targets by themselves had NO POWER without the LIE the came before them.

It's only reasonable to protect yourself if someone is trying to kill your family.

Violent language doesn't matter if it isn't justified. In this case she justified it with a LIE!

The whole gun issue has happened in this order.

Bring your gun to political rallies to intimidate Democrats.

Make up huge lies and conspiracy theories about what Democrats are trying to do.

Then use violent language and imagery to threaten Democrats with while fishing for crazy people to shoot them.

We totally screwed up by leaving out the motive!

Now if you look at the push to bring guns on campus in terms of MOTIVE what do we have?

It's pretty easy to figure out.

The conservatives feel like the college campuses are liberal territory. They've been trying to over-throw the college left for a long time but it hasn't worked. What to do? Threaten and intimate the college left with your guns, that's what!

Since intimidating Democrats with their guns has worked so well in the political sphere. Why not do it to the lefties at university too?

This is what they're doing.

They want to get their little brat conservatives to wear guns to school so they can threaten professors and liberal groups on campus.

I don't know what we're going to do about this but it has to be stopped. If we don't stop them here they'll be standing outside of our houses with guns someday!

I'm AGAINST expanding any gun laws because this only gives them and excuse and even worse it validates the EXCUSE they're using for carrying their guns in the first place.

I'm really against any speech police actions. Right when we need to fight back with INCIVILITY, and we're so fucking stupid that we are trying our own hands.

It's impossible to get along with people who are trying to destroy you! We need all the language we can get to fight back with. WHY gag ourselves now?

We need to focus on WHAT they're doing. WHY their doing it and HOW they're doing it.

The right hates university professors and that's why they want to bring guns to the schools. To scare the professors with those guns and that's the ONLY reason! The colleges need to come out RIGHT NOW and make statements to the press saying.

WE WILL NOT STAND FOR BEING INTIMIDATED!

Tell the young conservatives to take their guns and get out!

The colleges have a duty to protect their students. It will be an outrage if they let this happen because they got side-tracked by PHONY issues like the second amendment, language nick-picking, or the phony-ass "fear of criminals".

If the conservative filth brats are so afraid of everything then they need to stay home and take an on-line college course.

PERIOD!

[xchrom]

1. recommend -- though i expect this to go up in flames.

thanks for the attempt.

[hack89]

2. What's the problem?

it has been legal in Washington state for years and there have never been any issues.

[Joanne98]

4. This is the problem......

http://www.americablog.com/2011/01/florida-republican-introduces-bill-to.html

[hack89]

10. Again - there have been no problems with those states that allow it

to get a CCW permit you have to be 21 and pass a thorough background check - CCW holders have a lower rate of violent crime than the average citizen. Don't see the problem here - just adults exercising their civil rights.

[Joanne98]

22. I'm talking about motive. If the only reason you're bringing your gun to school is to threaten..

people then that's a problem. And NO I don't except any of their reasons. All they do is lie!

[hack89]

32. What about all of us liberal that support concealed carry?

why should I surrender by civil rights because of your hyperventilating over those evil conservatives?

[cleanhippie]

39. Oh, just stop it.

You are making sense, and on this subject, sense has no place, don't you know that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. You're impure...probably unclean too nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. "The only reason?"

Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone.

Loughner is on video prowling a campus.

Campuses are NOT sanctuaries free from robbery and sexual assault.

Maybe they want to be allowed to carry guns because campuses are just as dangerous as any place else.


Tell me, if a bunch of jocks were bullying a gay student or some creep was stalking his ex-GF would you demand the campus prevent them from defending their persons?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

126. The FBI and DOJ are RW?

didn't know that.

[PavePusher]

134. Who's talking about "threatening"?

If I carry, it's to defend myself against criminal action.

If you find that threatening, the irrational fear is entirely yours.

[samplegirl]

3. Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy to Rec.

[high_and_mighty]

179. Well said?

Regardless of the message I don't think I could say the op is "very well said." I would say angry rant or maybe very intense diatribe.

As to the OP how many people have exposed their concealed weapon* to you as a way to intimidate. Maybe you have some crime stats to link that show this is already happening at schools were concealed carry is legal unless the students and professors are too scared to tell anyone after being intimidated by all the weapons they can't see.

*concealed weapon is referring to a handgun not a penis

[oneshooter]

5. Mayhaps if they would remove the AW ban from the platform

then the right will believe that the left is not wanting to disarm them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Joanne98]

7. What is the "AW" ban? We were never talking about disarming anyone. This is a PHONY issue!

[hack89]

12. Assault weapons ban. nt

[Joanne98]

23. Whatever! This is just another excuse.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. No, it is not.

The Assault Weapons Ban continues to be a part of the Democratic Party Platform. President Obama ran on re-instating the AWB, and it is still on www.change.gov under Urban Policy. It was removed from www.whitehouse.gov a couple of months into his presidency. However, his attorney general, Eric Holder, floated the idea of re-instating the AWB shortly after President Obama took office. Fortunately, it was soundly talked down by major players in the Democratic Party. They know it is political suicide.

Now I know a lot of people don't see a ban on a firearm as "disarming". But most pro-firearm people do. If you ban a class of firearms, you have just eliminated my ability to buy one. This is equivalent to disarming me and all future generations from that class of weapon.

[Joanne98]

31. I'm questioning the reasons they're giving. I don't believe they give a fuck about the AW ban.

It's just an excuse as far as I'm concerned. All I'm concerned about is stopping them from threatening ME with their guns.

Now if they refused to stop threatening people with their guns we MAY have to take them away. At least from people who are playing games.

Maybe instead of passing gun laws we should pass "You threatened me with your gun so now your going to JAIl laws".

Which is going to happen if they don't stop. Even I would support throwing them in jail and taking away their permits. And I hate the police state but I'm not putting up with their crap anymore!

I don't believe any of their lame excuses!

If their so afraid of getting their gun rights taken away then maybe they should keep their fucking guns away from LIBERALS! Because if they don't they WILL get problems.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. I don't follow....

I'm questioning the reasons they're giving. I don't believe they give a fuck about the AW ban.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. You're questioning the reasons who is giving? Who doesn't give a fuck about the AW ban?

I assure you, pro-firearm folks very much care about the assault weapons ban. The last AWB resulted in civilian assault rifles going from relative obscurity to being the most popular center-fire target rifle in America. People bought one out of fear that they would not be available. The election of President Obama has resulted in historic record sales of firearms and ammunition in the last two years. There have even been ammunition shortages until just recently.


It's just an excuse as far as I'm concerned.

What is an excuse for what?

All I'm concerned about is stopping them from threatening ME with their guns.

Who is threatening you with a gun?

Now if they refused to stop threatening people with their guns we MAY have to take them away. At least from people who are playing games.

Maybe instead of passing gun laws we should pass "You threatened me with your gun so now your going to JAIl laws".

Which is going to happen if they don't stop. Even I would support throwing them in jail and taking away their permits. And I hate the police state but I'm not putting up with their crap anymore!

It is already illegal to brandish a weapon or otherwise threaten someone with bodily harm.

[shadowrider]

119. This is a classic emotional rant by someone who will refuse

under all circumstances to listen to reason or facts

:popcorn:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. You want ot take legal action

not based on any action or statement but solely based on what you presume the intent to be?

Here's a suggestion: don't be so scared. VOILA! Evil neocon plot is foiled.

[PavePusher]

135. No-one is threatening you with a gun.

You are now making things up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. It is not phony and it cost us seriously in some areas

[DrDan]

6. Republicans? broader than that I am afraid

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

9. No they won't.

[cleanhippie]

42. No they won't

But they will tell what is factual. You do like facts, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Petitions for facts only get you put on ignore

*sigh*

[CTyankee]

122. With their tired old arguments and misleading charts...

it's getting boring...every gun thread, same distortions, same charts over and over...they need a regular job...

[X_Digger]

125. Since mine is the only chart in this thread, perhaps you could actually speak to me? n/t

[CTyankee]

136. as a courtesy to you, I was referring to the gun charts in general.

It's no secret that I have challenged some of them in the past.

That is all.

[spin]

162. Many of the charts posted come from reliable sources such as the DOJ ...

you may not like the charts because you don't like the truth that much of what you believe is false. You apparently can't find data to defend your views, but obviously you refuse to change them.

If you chose to live in a fantasy world that's your right.

[spanone]

11. nothing says higher education like a glock 9

:sarcasm:

kent state could have had a whole different outcome!

[Atypical Liberal]

13. The right happens to be the biggest supporter of 2A is all.

The sad fact is that the right is usually a bigger supporter of the second amendment than the left. So it is not surprising that most pro-firearm legislation comes out of the right. Nor is it surprising, sadly, that most anti-firearm legislation comes out of the left. This is a massive wedge issue that the left could instantly negate and co-op.

There is no logical reason why I can't carry a firearm on a college campus. No one carries concealed weapons to threaten or intimidate anyone - that's why they are concealed.

Here's the thing: If I satisfy all the conditions for and legally obtain a concealed carry permit, such that I can walk down main street surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens without being a threat to anyone, why can't I walk on a college campus the same way? Am I going to turn into a deranged maniac just because I crossed over onto the hallowed ground of a university? No.

In all the states that I am aware of, you have to be 21 to obtain a concealed carry permit. So it's not like we are talking about fresh-out-of-high-school kids.

I'm 40 years old and attend night school at UAH. Now I don't carry a concealed weapon, but after the shooting we had here on campus last year by the deranged biology professor, I sure considered it, even though it's against the rules. The way it stands right now, nobody on my campus has a gun except people intent on doing wrong. No rule or law stopped Amy Bishop from bringing a gun on campus and killing three people and injuring three others. And no one had the means to resist her if they wanted to.

I think it's OK to disallow firearms in dormitories, for the simple reason that you generally don't get to pick your roommate and I don't think it's fair to allow one student to have a gun in the room/building when the roommate or dormmate might have a problem with it.

But I have no problem with students who live off campus carrying their firearms with them when the go to campus. It is no different than if they went for a walk downtown.

[Joanne98]

19. Well if this phony fight keeps going on we'll ALL be wearing guns everywhere.

I'm NOT putting up with this crap forever and neither is anybody else. Either the authorities do something about the conservatives and their constant death threats against law abiding citizens or we'll just have to defend ourselves.

Nobody is going to like that either but this is were it's leading because of the gutlessness in dealing with the conservatives and their OUTRAGEOUS behavior.

They're going to stop terrorizing people ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

It really doesn't matter to me how it gets done, just get it done!

[glinda]

37. A SC Judge once confided in me that the intention was to have "justice" decided in the streets

omitting the bulk of police, etc.... like in the shoot em up cowboys days. This was said to me in all seriousness.

[PavePusher]

138. Then the Judge was an idiot. n/t

[glinda]

158. No. Judge was right just watching the progression of that since said years ago.

[PavePusher]

191. Sorry, there is a distinct legal difference between self-defense and vigilantism.

If the Judge doesn't recognise that, s/he is unfit for the position.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. We'll just have to defend ourselves.

I'm NOT putting up with this crap forever and neither is anybody else. Either the authorities do something about the conservatives and their constant death threats against law abiding citizens or we'll just have to defend ourselves.

Nobody is going to like that either but this is were it's leading because of the gutlessness in dealing with the conservatives and their OUTRAGEOUS behavior.

They're going to stop terrorizing people ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

It really doesn't matter to me how it gets done, just get it done!

Look, gun control is finished in this country for the foreseeable future. Gun rights have only grown in the last 20 years. Since 1986, we have gone with hardly any states that allowed concealed carry, to now only 2 do not, and one of those, Wisconsin, is about to change to allow it.

In the last year we have had two landmark Supreme Court Rulings - DC vs. Heller, which confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a collective right, and McDonald vs. Chicago, which incorporated the second amendment under the fourteenth Due Process Clause, which means the States cannot abrogate the right to keep and bear arms.

The good news is the anyone, liberal or conservative, is free to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Also, it may interest you to know that CCW permit holders are far less likely to be involved in crime than your average citizen. Most firearm homicides, and probably most firearm crimes in general, are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories. People who go to the trouble to legally carry a firearm an obtain a permit are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country.

[Erose999]

44. Jared Loughner was carrying his weapon legally right up until he shot Gabby Giffords and 19

other people, including a 9 year old child.

Something to think about. Out of the many thousands who carry without incident theres always ONE potential killer.

[cleanhippie]

49. Do you apply that logic to everything?

More people die by drowning in their bathtub than are killed by legal CCW holders. By your logic (or lack of it) we need tighter bathtub control, right?

[Atypical Liberal]

50. This is a false meme.

Out of the many thousands who carry without incident theres always ONE potential killer.

This is a popular anti-firearm meme - the idea that all law-abiding firearm owners are law abiding right up until they snap and kill someone.

But the reality is quite different. There is a huge, huge indicator as to whether a firearm owner is going to commit a crime with their firearm. Past criminal history. The overwhelming majority of people who commit murder with a firearm have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, four felonies:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

It probably follows that most firearm crime in general is likewise committed by people with past criminal records.

The idea that "any firearm owner is a potential killer" is false. It would be far more accurate to say that "any firearm owner with a criminal background is a potential killer." But it's already illegal for such people to own firearms.

[Erose999]

88. You didn't read my post fully. I never said ALL firearm owners were

criminals and killers. Just the ones who do snap and kill people. Fact: Jared Lee Loughner was within his rights to both own a firearm and bring said weapon to the Gabby Giffords event.

Furthermore, gun violence and criminal records are not mutually inclusive. It can't be said that ALL individuals with a criminal record will be guilty of gun violence. They may be more likely according to the statistics, but, as in your argument most individuals in that group will NOT commit gun crimes.

Nor can it be said that every criminal convicted of gun crimes had a criminal record PRIOR to committing their crime. A criminal record is not something bestowed upon a person from birth, after all.

And I've been on the wrong end of a gun held by a previously convicted felon before. Its a scary experience but it didn't change my position. That incident was partially my own fault and happened in an environment about as far-removed from a college campus or a political rally as you can get.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. "Jared Lee Loughner was within his rights to...own a firearm"

No he wasn't. There are laws against it. Laws even the NRA supports.

Those laws were never enforced.

[Erose999]

111. What would have happened if Jared were pulled over and searched on his way to the event though?

He had obtained the weapon and the necessary permits to own it. The laws being laxly enforced as they were, his gun probably would not have been taken.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. Fair questions

But you can't search everyone on their way to a political rally because there are too many events and too many people attending.

I can't imagine a scenario of an officer having probable cause to search unless Loughner was acting squirrely. He never should have had the permits in the first place.

[Hoopla Phil]

140. What would have happened had the Sheriff prosecuted Jared on the

many criminal complaints made against him? Do you think Jared's mother working for the county had anything to do with that. This guy was crying for help for a very long time. Things that are in place to stop this from happening were not done. I put most of the failure to act on the sheriff.

[Atypical Liberal]

113. What laws?

As far as I have hard, Loughner was completely legitimate to possess firearms.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. How could it be legit if the law says people who are a danger to the public cannot own them?

The next question is, how do we know when someone is a danger to the public?

The answer seems to me, when the authorities have to deal with them because of threatening behavior.

THAT is Loughner, several times over.

I'm waiting for the hysterics to die down enough to get some answers as to WHY Loughner was never put into the system.

Calling for more gun laws is like taking off a parachute, jumping out the plane and then demanding a better parachute.

[Atypical Liberal]

124. It's quite simple.

I'm waiting for the hysterics to die down enough to get some answers as to WHY Loughner was never put into the system.

The answer is quite simple. In spite of Loughner's background, he was never adjudicated mentally incompetent nor involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

If he had been, he would have been flagged in the NICS system.

Consequently he was legally possessing a firearm.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. Yes, but WHY wasn't he committed or put into the courts for adjudication

He wasn't in legal possession the authorities are in dereliction of duty.

[Atypical Liberal]

143. Because it's hard to do.

Yes, but WHY wasn't he committed or put into the courts for adjudication

It wasn't so long ago in this country when people were routinely "put away" in institutions even though they were sane. If you had a daughter who got pregnant, or was too promiscuous, etc. Consequently it has gotten harder to have people institutionalized. This is probably a good thing. Liberty needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.

He was probably not committed or sent for evaluation because he didn't do anything that could be construed as a threat to himself or others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. BUt students and faculty reported numerous times they were fearful of him

At least 5 reports.

Surely, I'd like to think we can tell the difference between a girl who is pregnant and the person who made the video walking through the campus and muttering insane ramblings.

[Atypical Liberal]

152. Hindsight is 20-20

Obviously no one thought he was actually dangerous enough to himself or others to report him to the police.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

155. They thought he was dangerous enough to expel from a public school

and they thought he was dangerous enough to demand he not return without a psychiatric review.

And yet, here is the OP claiming she's scared cuz the GOP wants her to be scared.

[shadowrider]

145. He wasn't found to be mentally incompetent by a court

And nothing in his background, that I've heard, lent itself to him going off in this fashion.

Tell me, what civil rights should people give up in order to be monitored, injected, interviewed, locked up and evaluated without just cause (meaning no actions that would justify this happening). You are looking at this through pristine 20/20 hindsight.

Tell me, which ones?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. How would any civil rights be lost if multiple people report multiple times

that a person made them fearful violence could break out at any moment?

Pima Community College in Tucson has released records of its campus police contacts with student Jared Loughner, showing the increasing fear that he stirred in his classmates and teachers.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5826284-records-show-fear-of-loughner-lack-of-mental-health-intervention

[shadowrider]

151. Ok, so a guy walks through the mall mumbling to himself and people

report they're fearful of him.

He's done nothing wrong. What civil right(s) would be violated for locking this guy up for observation with no just cause?? (based soley on other peoples' fear of him).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

153. Please take a moment to read the article in full

What you are citing is not the extent of his behavior and encounters with authorities.

He was banned from campus after 5 reported episodes and instructed not to return absent a psychiatric evaluation.

If matters were as thin as you portray then the school violated his rights to places of public accomodation.

Or they had a legitmate fear of him but people stopped short of reporting him.

What if after encounter #5 he decided to buy his gun and, instead of the Gifford's event, he went to seek "revenge" on the campus that ostracized him? Whose rights would have been violated then, Loughner's or the victim's? Wouldn't the school look foolish for stating he was dangerous enought to expel but not forwarding it to proper legal channels?

[shadowrider]

159. I'm NOT disagreeing with you but he did NOT get the psych evaluation

That is the gist of what I said. Had he gotten it, and I assume that would take a court order since he didn't go on his own, he'd have been flagged in NICS. He didn't, he wasn't.

It doesn't matter how many REPORTED ESPISODES he had. Without a psychiatric evaluation saying he was a ticking time bomb, there was nothing on his record that would stop him from buying a weapon.

Again, what civil right should have been violated to grab him, evaluate him and/or commit him without due process?

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

161. Thank-you for the clarification and you are absolutely correct

I would only add, he SHOULD have been forced to get an eval and there was plenty of reasons to do so; not only stave off this tragedy but before he was a killer he was a person tormented by thoughts he could not control.

[shadowrider]

166. In hindsight, you're correct.

Beforehand, his transgressions weren't serious enough to be taken seriously, or what people thought was ignored, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. What then is the threshhold for intervention?

honest question

How much/what kind of behavior does one have to exhibit before the authorities are allowed to intervene?

[shadowrider]

171. That is the question of the day

Find an answer and you'll become rich.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

176. Except there is a legal threshhold already written

And it seems that standard was ignored.

[shadowrider]

177. Not disagreeing. This lead to him NOT being put into NICS

Legal gun owners shouldn't be punished because the system failed to take notice and do something about this guy

[DonP]

196. How about the Psych equivalent of a TRO?

When you have a TRO against you, you are temporarily barred from purchasing a gun and your name pops up on the NICS check. When the TRO is voided or expires you are good to go.

Why not allow a temporary Psych hold for the same reasons? The cops, based on contacts, or a family member or school principal can request one. When a Doc or shrink interviews you and determines that you are nor a threat to yourself or others, it's lifted? The Psych hold could have an automatic 60 or 90 day sunset to prevent abuse by law enforcement or angry ex's.

[shadowrider]

199. Well, that's a viable option PROVIDED

The hold is entered into NICS IMMEDIATELY, otherwise even that wouldn't stop him (unless he's locked up/held) with no charges (kinda agin the law).

[shadowrider]

172. That is the question of the day

Find an answer and you'll become rich.

[Hoopla Phil]

141. His mother worked for the county. I suspect

there is a relationship between the Loughner's and the sheriff and we saw a lot of inappropriate "professional courtesy".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

154. That would seem almost indictable

[Atypical Liberal]

112. Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

You didn't read my post fully. I never said ALL firearm owners were criminals and killers. Just the ones who do snap and kill people.

You said, "Out of the many thousands who carry without incident theres always ONE potential killer."

The implication here is that anyone who carries a firearm is a potential killer. While true, as I pointed out, there is in fact, a huge, huge predictor for who those potential killers are going to be, and it's not whether or not they own a firearm. It's whether or not they have a prior criminal history.

Fact: Jared Lee Loughner was within his rights to both own a firearm and bring said weapon to the Gabby Giffords event.

Yes, but crazy people going on shooting sprees are very rare events. Most firearm homicides are committed by ex-cons.

Furthermore, gun violence and criminal records are not mutually inclusive. It can't be said that ALL individuals with a criminal record will be guilty of gun violence. They may be more likely according to the statistics, but, as in your argument most individuals in that group will NOT commit gun crimes.

Nor can it be said that every criminal convicted of gun crimes had a criminal record PRIOR to committing their crime. A criminal record is not something bestowed upon a person from birth, after all.

No one has claimed that gun violence and criminal records are not mutually inclusive. And of course not all ex-cons will be guilty of gun violence.

But the fact remains, that most firearm homicides are committed by ex-cons. The largest thrust of any gun control measures should be aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of ex-cons.

[Erose999]

147. Well keeping guns away from Ex-cons is definitely something we can both agree on.

I'm not sure that Loughner was ever convicted of anything more than a misdemeanor for having drug paraphernalia though.

Theres a lot we don't know about his history of mental illness as well. Had he been seeing shrinks? Tried counseling? What meds was he on/off of? I'm not sure what the threshold is where you can be declared a threat to others or how that process happens. Its truly sad that Loughner's madness might have gone completely unchecked until he snapped.

I know a couple folks with severe bi-polar and even schizophrenia who are able to live relatively normal lives with meds and therapy. But once they go off their meds, or change their dosage or switch to another med... watch out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. It makes you wonder why, with all his encounters with authorities

none of them put him in the system to NOT be allowed to buy a gun.

There is a system and it wasn't used.

[Hoopla Phil]

144. I suspect a relationship exists between the family and the sheriff.

His mother works for the county.

[PavePusher]

139. Not really.

It is illegal to carry weapons with the intention of commiting a crime with them.

Unfortunately, we do not yet have a Bureau of Pre-Crime...

[cleanhippie]

43. Death threats are illegal.

Not sure what you mean, unless you are implying that legal CCW is a "death threat", and that is ridiculous.

[PavePusher]

137. O.K., now you're talking about something else entirely.

What does this have to do with "...bear arms..."?

[DirkGently]

14. You've hit a key issue. Armed *conservatives* is the result of these laws, and the goal.

[hack89]

16. What about us armed liberals? nt

[Xenotime]

24. Isn't that a contradiction?

[hack89]

34. Liberals support all civil rights. nt

[cleanhippie]

55. Exactly!

It astounds me how many liberals seem to forget that.

[X_Digger]

69. Not if you are a blue collar or rural liberal, no.

Until the late 60's, it was often a Democrat speaking up for the second amendment, in opposition to an authoritarian Republican.

For example, see the CA Assembly votes on the 'Mulford Act', signed into law by then-governor Raygun.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. Yes and no.

No, it does not have to be a contradiction, but unfortunately, it often is.

There is no reason why anyone from any background can not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms if they so choose.

But I think I understand the differences.

Conservatives, by nature, tend to believe very much in "self-reliance". Now they are often deluded in to how independent they really are from the rest of society, but nonetheless, the conservative ideology is very much an ideology of ultimately being responsible for yourself. We see this in arguments over health care. This includes the notion of defending oneself and one's family. So in an assault situation, a conservatives first response is "grab your gun".

Liberals, by nature, tend to believe in collective efforts to solve problems. Whether it is health care, or education, or security, they see it as the responsibility of the collective, not their own personal responsibility. So in an assault situation, a liberals first response is "call the police".

There is also the issue of trust of government. Conservatives as a rule seem to be highly distrustful of government, and seek to minimize its influence. Liberals as a rule seem to embrace government, and seek to maximize its influence for solving social problems. Since the right to keep and bear arms is primarily a built-in right of revolution against the government, it is not surprising that the people most distrustful of it would be most likely to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The funny thing is, it shouldn't take much to push a conservative into being liberal. With their inherent distrust of government, you'd think they would be the first to recognize the overwhelming influence of corporations and money over the governing process.

[spin]

164. Not at all. The Second Amendment is extremely liberal and progressive ...

It means that our government trusts its citizens to own weapons that might lead to its overthrow. Talk about "power to the people!"

How has that worked out?

The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times and stands today as the longest-lasting written constitution in the world.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_6.html

[DirkGently]

30. Armed liberals need to dissuade the NRA of its absolutist positions.

[hack89]

36. The NRA supports background checks, gun safety training

increased punishment for criminal use of guns. What absolutist positions are you referring to?

[DirkGently]

52. Start with the core fallacy that any regulation is an attempt at a total ban.

And the notion that registration is only to "tax 'em or take 'em."

The ATF, which the NRA consistently propagandizes as a group of "jackbooted thugs," has been eviscerated by NRA money and NRA lies. Apparently the Second Amendment also means that law enforcement must be prevented from even effectively tracing weapons sold illegally. Pro Publica reported recently that some 60,000 American long guns made their way to the Mexican drug wars, but, thanks to the NRA, we can't even determine which gun shops are selling them, because the NRA (dishonestly) equates registration with confiscation and blocks it.

For decades, the National Rifle Association has lobbied successfully to block all attempts at such computerization, arguing against any national registry of firearm ownership.

"Those who wonder what motivates American gun owners should understand that perhaps only one word in the English language so boils their blood as 'registration,' and that word is 'confiscation,' " according to an NRA fact sheet.


I was absolutely appalled and depressed at what they are going through out there," Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, told ATF officials at a hearing this year. "Literally you see pallets of these records come in, and they're just absolutely overwhelmed."

ATF employees, many of them hunkered over folding tables, go through a tedious process of sorting, stacking, cataloguing and deciphering. From the boxes, they pull out gun-sales records on ink-smeared, yellowed index cards and dog-eared ledger books filled with faded pencil. If they are lucky, they find 4473s written in clear, legible handwriting. Inside the dealer's boxes, workers sometimes find ammunition, the odd gun part - or rat feces. Some records have languished in attics for decades. Others have been underwater.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823_2.html


editted for speling.

[cleanhippie]

63. How about strong enforcement of EXISTING laws?

There are THOUSANDS of gun regulations currently on the books. When THOSE are strongly enforced, then we can talk about the need for more.

Just a couple of facts to keep in mind...

1. Gun ownership is at its highest levels ever.
2. Gun crime is at its lowest level in 40 years.


Pretty much crushed the argument that more guns = more crime, right?

[DirkGently]

77. Another NRA deception. Guns = crime is not the issue. Nor does correllation = causation.

[cleanhippie]

96. I never stated that it did.

But anti-2A groups DO continue to claim that more guns = more crime, and that is patently false.

The fact of the matter is that you have never been MORE safe in the HISTORY of firearms. I agree that correlation =/= causation, which is why you will not find the argument from me or any other pro-civil right person on DU saying that more guns = less crime, because that is not a true statement.

Tell me this, if the facts (and they ARE facts and not in dispute) I stated in my previous post to you are true, then how will tightening gun control regulations change gun crime rates?

[DirkGently]

99. Registration would allow ATF to track illegal sales better, for a start.

[X_Digger]

106. Did you really just type that?

A person performing an illegal sale would register?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. Why would someone register an illegal transaction?

I never registered any of my "transactions" with the FDA when I was in college.

just sayin'

[cleanhippie]

131. Hahahahahahahahaha! Took me a second, but thats some funny shit right there!

[Glassunion]

146. Ditto... Flew right over my head, but thankfully it did a 180 and smacked me...

I was two posts down and had to come back....

Funny shit NU +100

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. Thank-you, I'll be here all we.

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

:P

[Atypical Liberal]

117. It also negates the prime purpose of the second amendment. n/t

.

[GreenStormCloud]

129. Nope. Illegals sales are not required to register. 5th Amendment.

There was a SCOTUS case on it. Registration, if the gun sale is illegal, is self-incrimination and that is against the 5th. Therefore, criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.

Only legal gun owners can be required to register their guns, but legal owners are not the ones causing the problem.

[cleanhippie]

130. Uh, if it is an ILLEGAL sale, why would it be registerd?

:wtf:

[PavePusher]

178. Umm, logic-fail, me thinks...

Edit: They can trace any gun with a serial number just fine as things stand now. As in literally only a few hours of phone calls.

[hack89]

64. What useful purpose does registration have when it comes to

preventing violent crime? Most murders are committed by criminals using illegal weapons.

Every gun control such as the Brady bunch has at it's core that certain types of weapons should not be in the hands of civilians. It is a fact that can't be denied. If you support the AWB as the President does, then you support banning guns. If you think we make too much of that, then the solution is simple - the president simply need to say "I do not support the banning of any weapon presently legal in America." And the issue goes away.

[DirkGently]

75. The argument that criminals ignore the law is meaningless. Why have laws, at all then?

The notion that no weapon should be banned from civilian use is absolutist and problematic. The argument that gun homicides are carried out by criminals with illegal guns sounds like, at best, an NRA manipulation of facts, which is a speciality of that dishonest organization. Columbine, Virigina Tech, Tuscon?

The notion that the President needs to reassure gun enthusiasts of anything in the country with the most guns per person in the world is laughable.

[hack89]

82. No - the argument is why should we have useless and ineffective laws?

especially ones that impact civil rights? If you can't prove it will fix the problem then you shouldn't propose it.

So what weapons should civilians be banned from owning and why is such a ban "reasonable"?

[Atypical Liberal]

87. And we don't, if they affect others adversely.

The argument that criminals ignore the law is meaningless. Why have laws, at all then?

Whenever we pass a law, we have to decide who it's going to affect. If it adversely affects law-abiding folks, while doing nothing to deter criminals, then there is little point in the law.

The notion that no weapon should be banned from civilian use is absolutist and problematic.

Before you can have discussions on what weapons are appropriate for civilian use, you have to first agree on what the second amendment was intended to do. I submit to you that the second amendment was to make sure that the civilian population was armed with weapons appropriate for infantry use in a military force. Any bans need to be framed in that context.


The argument that gun homicides are carried out by criminals with illegal guns sounds like, at best, an NRA manipulation of facts, which is a speciality of that dishonest organization. Columbine, Virigina Tech, Tuscon?

See:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Most firearm homicides are carried out by people with extensive criminal histories, including, on average 4 felonies.

The notion that the President needs to reassure gun enthusiasts of anything in the country with the most guns per person in the world is laughable.

Why, when he campaigned on re-instating the assault weapons ban? Why, when it is still part of the Democratic Party Platform?

[beevul]

195. Why have laws, at all then?

Laws give society a recourse when people break them. Thats why.

[Atypical Liberal]

81. Sorry, registration is a no-go.

And the notion that registration is only to "tax 'em or take 'em."

It's simply undeniable that these are two very serious consequences of registration.

If you believe, as I do that the second amendment is primarily a built-in right of revolution, making sure that the people are always armed to resist oppression, then giving the government a list of people able to resist serious undermines that rationale.

I will never support nor comply with any registration effort.

[DirkGently]

95. That logic is the problem. NRA balances a real gov't need to regulate vs. a theoretical conspiracy

... and concludes that the theoretical gov't conspiracy to ban guns (in, again, the country with the most per capita guns in the world) is more important than the existing issue of illegal gun sales.

The reality is that the NRA wants to protect illegal gun sales and criminal gun dealers, because that's how the NRA gets paid.

[Atypical Liberal]

108. I don't follow.

That logic is the problem. NRA balances a real gov't need to regulate vs. a theoretical conspiracy

You'll note that this logic came from the founding fathers, and vastly predates the NRA, which was founded in 1871.

... and concludes that the theoretical gov't conspiracy to ban guns (in, again, the country with the most per capita guns in the world) is more important than the existing issue of illegal gun sales.

The NRA has been, and continues to be, a strong advocate of preventing illegal gun sales, keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, and strong penalties for people who commit crimes with firearms.

The reality is that the NRA wants to protect illegal gun sales and criminal gun dealers, because that's how the NRA gets paid.

How so?

[GreenStormCloud]

132. That is NOT how the NRA gets paid.

The NRA's budget comes primatily from voluntary membership dues. 4.5 million people who have voluntarily joined an organization generates a load of money. And those 4.5 million folks are politically active.

[PavePusher]

185. What dou you mean by this?

"The reality is that the NRA wants to protect illegal gun sales and criminal gun dealers, because that's how the NRA gets paid."

Can you explain this for us?

[one-eyed fat man]

156. Why not take them at their word?

"...And the notion that registration is only to 'tax 'em or take 'em.'"

Every gun control organization for the past half century has had as part of its charter the complete elimination of private firearms ownership. You can find their statements of policy by the hundreds.

Where is the compromise in these statements?

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States." -Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

Gun control absolutists pretending they are interested in compromise...hilarity! They have been up front for decades about their goal, the complete elimination of all privately own firearms. They have NEVER repudiated their ultimate desire, only they will accept, for the time being.

In the end, their own words, statements and deeds make it imperative to ask, "Were they all lying then, or are y'all lying now?"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

180. *sigh*

I don't doubt a word of what you posted.

I'm tired of being lied to by people claiming to be on my side. I used to be real big on gun bans, but I feel it starting to ebb and the deceptions don't help.

Why lie about their intent except to admit it isn't politically viable to speak the truth?

But if you have to lie to get your way you aren't in it for any noble cause because you are pushing laws on people who don't want them.

Ditto pot legalization, DADT and gay marriage. These are prohibitions that sustain themselves only because of the misinformation thrown out by the other side.

[beevul]

193. Thats NOT the position. Its a mischaracterization of it.

"Start with the core fallacy that any regulation is an attempt at a total ban."

Thats not the argument. The argument, is that some folks - legislators and politicians - will attempt use it as a stepping stone. Many of those folks have publicly admitted as much.

Would you like examples?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361131

Things will get more "reasonable" when the gun control supporters reign in the absolutists and prohibitionists on their own side.

"And the notion that registration is only to "tax 'em or take 'em.""

Gun registration at the federal level is unlawful, per the FOPA of 1986.

"The ATF, which the NRA consistently propagandizes as a group of "jackbooted thugs," has been eviscerated by NRA money and NRA lies. Apparently the Second Amendment also means that law enforcement must be prevented from even effectively tracing weapons sold illegally. Pro Publica reported recently that some 60,000 American long guns made their way to the Mexican drug wars, but, thanks to the NRA, we can't even determine which gun shops are selling them, because the NRA (dishonestly) equates registration with confiscation and blocks it."

That cite is bullshit. Federal firearms licensees are required to keep records, as well as manufacturers. Manufacturers have detailed information on every gun they make - federal law requires it. They also have detailed information about what dealer they sell what guns to - again, required by federal law.

You said "we can't even determine which gun shops are selling them". Thats absolutely false.

What they can't do easily, is EASILY see what private person bought the gun. For that, they need to go through those stacks of 4473's.

Thats a far cry from "we can't even determine which gun shops are selling them".

Beyond that, in a few weeks, it will be clear as crystal how some of those "American long guns made their way to the Mexican drug wars", possibly including the one that shot and killed a border patrol officer.

Go to cleanupatf.org - a website by and for ATF personel, aimed at cleaning up the organization, if you're curious.

You may not like what some ATF personel are saying, though.

[cleanhippie]

57. What is an "absolutist position"?

[X_Digger]

61. You mean like their 'absolutist' position on Project Exile?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Brady Campaign were both early and vocal supporters of Project Exile, as were federal and city officials who claimed that Project Exile helped to reduce firearm-related violence in Richmond by 40 percent. The NRA lobbied the U.S. Congress to help secure $2.3 million for emulation of Exile in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden County, New Jersey where similar firearms-related violence has plagued the communities.

[DirkGently]

98. Like the absolutist postion that registration is a secret plot to ban all guns.

[X_Digger]

104. You mean like long guns in NYC or SKSs in CA?

There are two concrete examples of previously-legally-registered guns being confiscated. If you want to make absolutely sure that such can't happen again, then anonymous ownership is the only solution.

:shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

18. The heck of it is...

Constitutional rights are things that everyone gets the choice to exercise. There is nothing from stopping liberals from owning firearms. I certainly do.

[fascisthunter]

27. and bringing them onto college campuses, why?

[Atypical Liberal]

41. The same reason as bringing them anywhere else.

People who carry concealed firearms do so because they want the insurance of having the ability to take action to defend themselves or others against an assailant should it be necessary to do so. This is true whether they are walking downtown or walking on a college campus.

Lots of people attend night school in urban environments. I do. Now I don't carry a concealed weapon, but I seriously considered it after the shooting on my campus last year where Amy Bishop shot 6 people and killed 3 of them. I missed being there by one day (the shooting was on Friday, my classes were Tue/Thu). UAH does not allow firearms on campus. Interestingly, being a State institution, there is no law that prohibits it, but if the University were to catch you with a firearm, they could eject you from school, and you could lose credit for the work you did there.

The real question is not "why carry a concealed weapon on a college campus", but "why not?" If I can legally carry one down main street, surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, what is any different on a college campus?

Also, note that many campuses already allow concealed weapons on campus, and there have been no problems associated with it. This is understandable - people who go to the trouble to get CCW permits tend to be very law-abiding people. The rate of revocation, for states that have published the information, is less than 2%.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[badtoworse]

73. Stop it!! You're clouding the issue with logic - nt

[GreenStormCloud]

133. Why not?

My wife is 65, and is taking a week-end course at a local college. Why should she be required to leave her gun at home or in the car? What is so special about her concealed handgun? Crime happens on college campuses too.

[Joanne98]

20. Exactly!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. False as to fact

There are a lot of armed liberals out there too. I am personally teach classes of mostly GLTBQ people.

Armed gays don't get bashed/PinkPistols.org

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. OMG! My husband tried to get my best friend (aka gay BF) into pink pistols!

:toast:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. Pink Pistols are a real plus to the community

Shooting with them removes a lot of the stereotypes for beginners. Some in the gay community have tried to stigmatize them without success.

When I started teaching mostly GLBTQ people, the classes also changed. Fewer questions about "what is the most bad ass gun out there" and more more of ethics etc during the discussion portions. It was a welcome change.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. That is awesome.

My husband was very determined to instill a sense of respect for the weapon in both of us. He was always patient but also demanding that we not take it lightly and actually learn.

fr'instance...

He made us learn the parts of the weapon by memory so he could say what he needed to without us wondering which part of the gun he was talking about, we could just do it.

I have to say my GBF (who, in all honesty, is rather effiminate) really looked more confident at the end of the day. Lover Boy wanted to get him to look into joining Pink Pistols because he said people who refuse to be victims put bullies in their place and that makes the world better for everyone else.

The pacifist in me wanted to say something about that but it's kind of hard to argue against.

As a side note, my hubby comes from a fundie family and is pretty conservative (though he's pretty much unplugged from politics for the last year or so) but the two of them are the biggest clowns together. I really enjoy having the 3 of us together.

[hack89]

15. But there are plenty of guns on campus already

illegal ones granted, but they are there. If someone wants to kill someone else, all the laws in the world won't stop them.

Your OP also ignores all the Democrats who are pro-civil rights and support the RBKA.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

26. why should she?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

25. That's Exactly why... to foment fear and intimidation

[Joanne98]

33. Yep!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

40. and I agree with you!

[Upton]

54. Literally millions of good Democrats own guns..

that last number I saw had approximately 1 in 4 Democratic households exercising their Second Amendment rights. Are they all "sociopaths" too?

Lay off the anti gun hysteria and leave us law abiding gun owners alone..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. My husband (then my BF) took me and my gay BF out shooting once

It's not my bag but I can do it.

And we had a great day together.

We had playful competitiveness. We learned. We chatted about all sorts of stuff. It was one of the best days of my life because of the people I was with.

And not one whiff of paranoia.

[Joanne98]

80. I'm not attacking the guns, I'm attacking the motives.

Conservatives need to STOP threatening Democrats and liberals with their guns.

Democrats are not doing that. ONLY conservatives are doing that.

[X_Digger]

90. If someone threatens you with a gun, that is a crime.

However, if you feel threatened by the mere presence of a gun, or by knowing that someone might be legally carrying a firearm concealed on their person- that's a problem of your own making, and it's yours to resolve.

[shadowrider]

123. --snort--

[PavePusher]

186. No-one is doing that.

Stop your fear-mongering.

[Xenotime]

29. kicked!!

[grahamhgreen]

45. More guns = more shootings. More shootings = more profits for manufacturers & security co's.

[fascisthunter]

47. don't ya just love sociopathy?

who cares what happens to innocent people.. those guns are way more important.

[hack89]

74. Don't you love fact less hyperbole?

how do you explain the steady decline in violence over the past several decades? The simple fact is you have never been safer your entire life - you have to go back to 1963 to find a lower murder rate.

[cleanhippie]

91. The only sociopathy is the willful ignorance of the facts.

The facts you seem to keep willfully ignoring.

[fascisthunter]

103. your facts saving lives or endangering them more in your pursuit for

a larger more wide-spread gun culture? Less regulation will cost more lives and you know it. Have fun with your shinny weapons... it's all you care about.

[cleanhippie]

110. Ahh, here come the fallacious arguments. At least you are consistent.

Who is calling for LESS regulation? Not me, nor anyone else here on DU. We are calling for STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing laws. But you know that, and are IGNORING it, just like you are ignoring the rest of the facts because they do not fit your narrative...and THATS all YOU care about.

Since when did being a liberal or a progressive mean NOT being in favor of ALL civil rights?


And what is a "shinny" weapon? Did you mean shiny? I don't have any, but feel free to bloviate about more things you know nothing about.

[fascisthunter]

200. I Know Enough... I see the demand for less regulations on guns

and don't give me that crap about rights... I know what it means to be progressive or a liberal, and I don't need your litmus test to prove that I give a damn about people's lives. You obviously don't care. You care more about people's right to bear arms wherever they please. Nowehere in the Constitution does it support your claim. For you to claim it does, you would have to use the right wing Supreme Courts decision. Oh, and let's not forget the warping of, "well regulated militia" to mean carry without permits, bring guns onto college campuses, bring guns to Town Hall meetings to intimidate political opponents. I know what the fuck is going on, and I don't like, and I will call out the bullshit. Keep hiding behind civil rights to push this shit on the rest of us. The gun lobby thanks you.

[hack89]

67. Too bad the facts show exactly the opposite

violent crime is at historically low levels since falling steadily for decades - you have to go back to 1963 to find a lower US murder rate. And all this despite gun ownership skyrocketing. You have never been safer.

[grahamhgreen]

72. Not on campuses...

[hack89]

78. How can that be when they are gun free zones?

isn't gun control supposed to make me safer? Makes you wonder if the real problem is illegal guns on campus - please tell me again how banning CCW holders will impact the criminal use of guns?

[cleanhippie]

92. That is not an answer they have, it doesnt fit the narrative.

[DrDan]

70. more shootings = more paranoia = more guns - an unending cycle

[hack89]

128. Except more guns seems to equal fewer shootings

at least that's what the facts indicate.

[DrDan]

142. please provide a link that demonstrates that fewer shootings is caused by more guns

[hack89]

194. Here is one

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total murders 14,965 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,636
Total murders w/-firearms: 10,158 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,146
Murders w/- Handguns 7,565 7,836 7,398 6,800 6,452



http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

[cleanhippie]

84. But that is patently false!

Gun ownership is at its highest level EVER!
Gun crime is at its lowest levels in 40 YEARS.


Now that your fallacious argument has been smashed by facts, what say you?

[kctim]

53. Being so afraid and living in fear

is why you feel intimidated. It also explains you're "the right is out to kill us" conspiracy theory.

[Statistical]

58. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ..."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).


Ban on lawfully carrying firearms on campus didn't stop Cho. It simply stopped the law abiding. Criminals will break laws. Laws that restrict where law abiding can carry guns can serve no purpose, no benefit. Anyone compelled to break the law (intent on murder) won't be dissuaded by the fact that the school is a so called "gun free zone".

[Erose999]

59. An open letter I wrote to UGA administration and the GA legislature about guns on college campuses:

Eric Rose's open letter to the University of Georgia and Georgia lawmakers concerning HB615 and guns on college campuses.
by Eric Rose on Wednesday, 09 December 2009 at 15:28

Greetings, Friends.

I disagree with William McVay's opinion piece in the 12/9/09 Red and Black, I don’t think that allowing concealed weapons on college campuses as our GA lawmakers are aiming to do with HB615 will make anyone safer. The addition of concealed weapons to college campuses will be like a match to a powder keg.

As recent events have shown, violence still happens even in places where guns are in abundance and people are trained both to use guns and defend themselves against gun violence. If last month's shootings at Ft. Hood, TX and Seattle, WA tell us anything, it’s that the presence of guns in an environment is not an effective deterrent against what are now being called "Active Shooters".

According to the UGA Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, an Active Shooter is defined as "an armed person who has used deadly force on people and continues to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims." OSEP has a new program for university employees called Plan, Prepare, React: Active Shooter Response Options for Students, Faculty and Staff. This program gives instruction as to how to handle as Active Shooter scenario without the use of concealed handguns. These presentations are mandatory for all UGA employees and are given several times a year for students as well. The information about when/where these are held should be available on the OSEP Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Athens-GA/Office-of-Security-and-Emergency-Preparedness/47257981423

The campus police who protect us have enough on their plate as it is without having to worry about the use of concealed handguns by civilians who may be untrained, inexperienced, or even worse, inebriated. College campuses are high stress environments where communal living, dense crowds, alcohol use, and peer pressure are the norm. The statistics show that all of these factors are multipliers for instances of gun violence. Our campus community would have to adapt to the presence of weapons. Campus police, Housing staff, and building security details would be at greater risk when confronting disturbances. Remember a couple years ago when a student in a Ninja costume got dogpile’d by homeland security? He only had a plastic sword. Professors might not be as quick to offer criticism to students who need it, or bad grades to students who warrant them.

The purpose of a college campus is the free exchange of ideas. Often times this exchange happens through debate. Whether expressed or simply implied, the presence of weapons is bad for healthy debate as the nature of interaction between participants is changed. Recently, certain groups have been using the display of weapons at public events as an attempt to influence the debate of controversial issues.

While it is true that our state laws do prohibit concealed carry at "public gatherings," it is ambiguous at best as to what constitutes a "public gathering,” even among those who do choose to exercise their legal right to concealed carry. The forum McKay mentioned, Georgiapacking.org, as well as the Georgia Outdoor News forum (forum.gon.com) are both full of users who are confused as to when/where it is appropriate to carry.

Finally, McKay attempts to debunk the statistical facts concerning guns and gun accidents by saying "The mere presence of anything will significantly increase the chance an accident occurring involving the object." Cars, knives, even doorknobs do cause fatal accidents, but they are also used for transportation, preparing food, and opening doors… all harmless and necessary tasks. Not so in the case of concealed-carry handguns, however, as their primary purpose is injury to the Human body.

Regards,

Eric Rose
Library Assistant
Athens, GA

[Joanne98]

76. That's a really good letter. But we need to start to question the motives

of the gun culture. Especially on the right. I don't believe safety has anything to do with their desire to carry guns. They're LYING!

It's intimidation pure and simple. I suppose we could get into a deeper debate about why we have so much crime or crazies walking around. That's an econonic debate. Which we should have because it's all coming from conservative policies anyway.

Good letter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. I'm starting to question the motive of fear-mongering

[Katya Mullethov]

157. You can see how poorly it works

Cable news turned into a 24/7 pearl clutching , what could we have done about Uncle Fester fest . And it all amounted to squat .

States and municipalities ignored it and restored "freedumbs" in the face of all that noise . Maybe they dont watch TV ?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

160. I can't call this OP the product of cable news

This looks plucked out of thin air.

This is either brilliant parody, a feeble smear campaign (though if aimed left or right, I'm not sure) or a paranoid delusion in which case I'm glad the OP has an aversion to weapons.

And no, I'm not trying to be mean or trite.

[Katya Mullethov]

182. But fear mongering was the net result and most obviously the intent of Festerfest '11

You saw it all happen ,were you not impressed ?

The OP is quite likely to be just as sincere as it was verbose and a good sample of the vitriol emitting from a group of extremely frustrated people . Frustrated , angry , and incredulous that they can't have what we (they) need (want) .

All the same, even after lining up all those tv cameras and blasting away for weeks they have nothing to show for it but net losses . To me , that is impressive .

[shadowrider]

187. Holy crap.

The first post from you I've actually understood..

ROFL..:)

[X_Digger]

83. Not having followed the debate in GA..

.. is deterrence being proposed as one of the benefits of the proposal?

The reason I ask is that everyone I know who carries does so for their own protection, not in the hopes that doing so will deter crime in general.

For me, it's about having the possibility to protect myself.

eta: typo

[Erose999]

97. My letter letter was a response to a letter from a guy who said "concealed guns make a safer campus"

http://www.redandblack.com/2009/12/09/concealed-weapons-make-safer-campus/

Some of my RW acquaintances (not the writer of the above letter, who I wouldn't know from Adam) have made arguments that basically said "the idea that someone else in the room may be packing will keep people from committing violent crimes".

[X_Digger]

109. Yeah, I agree, that part's a bullshit argument.

Especially when it comes to concealed carry- where you don't know who is or is not carrying.

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Numerous problems with that letter.

I disagree with William McVay's opinion piece in the 12/9/09 Red and Black, I don’t think that allowing concealed weapons on college campuses as our GA lawmakers are aiming to do with HB615 will make anyone safer. The addition of concealed weapons to college campuses will be like a match to a powder keg.

I am curious as to why it is like a "powder keg". If I have a concealed carry permit, and I can walk down main street with a concealed firearm, surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, why will I be more dangerous when I go to class at the local college or university? Will I become a deranged maniac when I drive from work to my night classes?

As recent events have shown, violence still happens even in places where guns are in abundance and people are trained both to use guns and defend themselves against gun violence. If last month's shootings at Ft. Hood, TX and Seattle, WA tell us anything, it’s that the presence of guns in an environment is not an effective deterrent against what are now being called "Active Shooters".

Except, as I understand it, most military personnel on military bases are forbidden from carrying arms. Just because it is a military installation does not mean that everyone is walking around with an M16.

According to the UGA Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, an Active Shooter is defined as "an armed person who has used deadly force on people and continues to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims." OSEP has a new program for university employees called Plan, Prepare, React: Active Shooter Response Options for Students, Faculty and Staff. This program gives instruction as to how to handle as Active Shooter scenario without the use of concealed handguns. These presentations are mandatory for all UGA employees and are given several times a year for students as well. The information about when/where these are held should be available on the OSEP Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Athens-GA/Office-of-Secur...

I haven't read the plan, but I've seen the plan for my university. And it's basically this: Lock the door and hope the shooter doesn't come to your room before the police get there. Not a very comforting plan.

The campus police who protect us have enough on their plate as it is without having to worry about the use of concealed handguns by civilians who may be untrained, inexperienced, or even worse, inebriated. College campuses are high stress environments where communal living, dense crowds, alcohol use, and peer pressure are the norm. The statistics show that all of these factors are multipliers for instances of gun violence. Our campus community would have to adapt to the presence of weapons. Campus police, Housing staff, and building security details would be at greater risk when confronting disturbances. Remember a couple years ago when a student in a Ninja costume got dogpile’d by homeland security? He only had a plastic sword. Professors might not be as quick to offer criticism to students who need it, or bad grades to students who warrant them.

Of course, there are plenty of college and university campuses that already allow concealed carry of firearms, and they don't seem to be having any serious problems. Also, there is the fact that people who go through the trouble to obtain CCW permits tend to be very law-abiding people. They are crossing their "t"s and dotting there "i"s so that they can carry a weapon. They are hyper-law abiding. Otherwise, they'd just forgo the paperwork and carry anyway, like criminals do. Such people are going to know that it is illegal to carry while intoxicated, and, being law-abiding, are unlikely to do so.

CCW permit holders routinely carry firearms in areas of dense crowds and communal living - nearly any urban environment. How is a college campus any different?

You'll also note that in most, if not all cases, you have to be 21 to obtain a concealed carry permit. This means students in their 3rd or higher year of studies.

The purpose of a college campus is the free exchange of ideas. Often times this exchange happens through debate. Whether expressed or simply implied, the presence of weapons is bad for healthy debate as the nature of interaction between participants is changed. Recently, certain groups have been using the display of weapons at public events as an attempt to influence the debate of controversial issues.

We don't have problems on campuses that allow concealed carry. There haven't been any reports of a student pulling out his firearm and saying, "Dammit! I'm just not buying Netwon's Second Law!" The idea that CCW permit holders will be brandishing their firearms to stifle education on campus is ridiculous. Where are all the CCW permit holders doing this elsewhere?

Finally, McKay attempts to debunk the statistical facts concerning guns and gun accidents by saying "The mere presence of anything will significantly increase the chance an accident occurring involving the object." Cars, knives, even doorknobs do cause fatal accidents, but they are also used for transportation, preparing food, and opening doors… all harmless and necessary tasks. Not so in the case of concealed-carry handguns, however, as their primary purpose is injury to the Human body.

So what? The fact of the matter is they are a highly effective tool for preventing injury to the human body. That's why police officers carry them.

[PavePusher]

188. Ft. Hood?!?! Fucking Seriously?!

Do you know anything about the military? It is apparent you do not. There was not an armed person within several hundered yards, as military bases are also "victim disarmament zones". No-one is allowed to carry on military bases unless they are on-duty security (and there are damned few of them), or at a qualification range (and ammo is strictly controlled and only issued at the firing line).

Do NOT use the blood of my comrades to attempt to make a viciously false political point.

[aikoaiko]

205. I would say the primary purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is to protect oneself

or possibly others. Self-defense is a harm reducing act and arguably more necessary than transportation, preparing foods or opening doors.

I too work on a college campus in GA, and I wish I could carry a concealed weapon. There is nothing to stop someone on most campuses who plans on committing an act of violence.

[Raksha]

86. You are SO right!!!

Thank you for telling it like it is and not mincing words.

[Iggo]

89. To goad the Democrats into going after the guns.

They're losing the gay rights thing and they need fall back onto another of the old stalwarts: Gun Control Bad.

It's either that or they actually ARE cowards and need to take guns everywhere so they don't get uh-scared.

[spanone]

100. tennessee is one of four states that allows loaded guns in bars

great idea....:sarcasm:

[spin]

163. Have there been any problems in those states with guns in bars?

If so I haven't read of them. Please enlighten me.

[DrDan]

169. you don't see a problem in mixing guns and liquor?

[Katya Mullethov]

170. That is generally considered illegal

Carrying a gun in a bar on the other hand is not .

[spin]

173. Not if I'm not drinking...

If I am the one with the concealed weapon and I'm sober, why does it matter if I am sitting in a bar eating a hamburger and enjoying a coke while I wait to play designated driver and escort my friends home safely.

[DrDan]

174. obviously that is not the situation most of are concerned about, now is it

[X_Digger]

183. No, but it's the most likely scenario from a group that is more likely to follow the law..

See #114 for a comparison of TX CHL holders to the general public.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

210. Are you worried?

Is it a problem if you can't tell if the reason the guy two tables over at the Olive Garden who's been drinking iced tea all night is the designated driver or carrying a concealed weapon?

[shadowrider]

175. Any gun owner who conceal carries into a bar AND drinks

deserves to lose his/her CCW.

[PavePusher]

190. Can you demonstrate that it has been a statistically significant problem?

Cite to evidence, please?

[X_Digger]

114. Texas has a similar bill up for consideration..

Honestly, I'm not concerned.



That's comparing the general public > 21 years of age with CHL holders in Texas > 21 years of age.

Each is the rate per group- so the CHL rate is X holders per 100,000 CHL holders, not general population.

[howard112211]

115. I think you are on to something.

All the while we are debating if someone has the right to show up at a political rally with a gun as a matter of principle, we are forgetting the much more obvious question: Why would one even want to? The accusation of it being a hostile "display of strength" is not far fetched.

[Hoyt]

165. Exactly. But, just wait, someone will ask who appointed you the "arbiter of want/need."

I think it's an official NRA copyrighted talking point. I think you can actually earn NRA points each time you use it.

[GreenStormCloud]

192. It is a valid question.

Whenever someone else attempts to tell me what I do and don't need, I have a right to question their authority. I am not required to justify my needs to her. "I want..." is sufficient.

[Hoyt]

201. Maybe it is a valid question if you have nogunagoraphobia.

If irrational, then it is a mental condition that should disqualify you from carrying in public. There are some situations where the fear may be rational, but not many.

In any event, the poster above is exactly right -- WHY would you want to carry . . . . . ?

[Katya Mullethov]

203. I got me a Zumbo mug

This little mug has big ears .

[slackmaster]

120. Joanne98, you said "The colleges have a duty to protect their students."

If that is so, and it's not to be done by armed people, then why aren't college campuses equipped with metal detectors and X-ray machines at every entrance point?

You can't have it both ways. Either weapons are truly and actively excluded from campus, or you need to allow QUALIFIED people who are licensed to carry weapons bring them in.

Campus police can't be everywhere all the time, and you can't deny the fact that policies that allow people to carry concealed weapons on campus, in places that have them, have not caused any problems.

The whole argument against allowing it is based on conflation of lawfully carrying a weapon for self-defense, with carrying one illegally with criminal intent.

[lawodevolution]

168. Paranoid that those republicans are going to get you, do they also send

you commands through the radio towers.

[shadowrider]

181. I understand tinfoil hats reflect the rays n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

184. Careful

Loughner thought grammar was used to control people.

Seriously: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/loughner-believed-grammar-has-a-politics-so-did-the-first-grammarian/69341/#

[lawodevolution]

189. a more serious post. There are lots of republicans out there who want to limit the 2A also

The government in general is jealous of power held by the people and is very jealous of our ability to own firearms. Notice when we establish "democracies" in other countries we don't establish them with their own version of the 2A. In the US we have been given something very special, something that requires the government to treat us like adults. Look at our country from outside of the box, chinese think it is amazing that you can buy guns in walmart in the US, they feel that only a population of people with great self control can be given this ability. Part of being human and being an adult is to have self control. While the rest of the people in the world are treated as if they are children or animals, we are treated like adults and as equals in this regard. I like feeling that I am equal to any political figure within this country and that no politician has more rights than I do. Unfortunately the elite or ruling class do not feel that we should be equal to them, most of them would like to ban guns to the general public but will not do so because it would the end of their careers. Many republicans would also like to ban guns, so to say that republicans are messing around with democrats by expanding gun rights shows that you know little about the world around you.

[spin]

198. Great post! (n/t)

[Douva]

202. Wow. Just wow.

And here I thought the Right had cornered the market on crazy conspiracy theories.

I have just two questions for you, Joanne98:

First, how does your theory apply to those of us who vehemently support the legalization of licensed concealed carry on college campuses but don't support the Republican Party?

Second, how does your theory apply to Texas, the state at the forefront* of the "campus carry" movement, where it's a serious crime for a concealed handgun license holder to show or tell another person that he or she is carrying a gun? Where does the intimidation factor come into play when you can be arrested and sentenced to ten years in jail for simply letting someone else know that you're armed?

At the risk of being accused of trying to intimidate you (or, worse yet, of being compared to Sarah Palin), I'd like to interject a little sanity into this discussion. I suggest you take a look at this PDF document: http://www.StudentsForCampusCarry.org

You may not agree with everything you read in that document, but I can guarantee you (because I wrote it) that it's not part of some grand conspiracy aimed at giving conservatives a toehold in America's institutions of higher education.

*Texas has come closer than any other state to actually passing a campus carry bill. During Texas's last legislative session (2009), SB 1164 passed the Senate 21 to 11 and had overwhelming (and bipartisan) support in the House but ran out of time do to a filibuster of an unrelated bill. Though concealed carry is already allowed at all public colleges in Utah, at a number of colleges in Colorado, and and at one college in Virginia, campus carry in those states is legal do to the wording of state law, not because those states passed legislation deliberately aimed at legalizing campus carry.

[aikoaiko]

204. I don't know about RWers, but I want to carry concealed on my campus to protect myself if I need to

I think that is a damn good reason.

[PavePusher]

206. If this is true:

"The colleges have a duty to protect their students."

...then I am sure you can cite to where they have compensated students for all the times they have failed to do so, amiright?

[snot]

207. THANK YOU for focussing on big-picture strategy!

[one-eyed fat man]

208. Pay attention

You talk about colleges duty to protect? Look at the cell phone video of the campus police at Virginia Tech. They are walking around waiting for the city SWAT team to show up.

Listen to the firing by the damn killer. Methodical, unhurried, plenty of pauses as he reloaded. He had already been shooting for nearly 20 minutes at the beginning of the clip. A couple spots in the audio you hear wind noise, but near the end there is the blast when the SWAT team finally breaches the door and goes in.

Almost as soon as armed police enter the building, Cho shoots himself. The campus police did nothing much but wander about yelling at students OUTSIDE to clear the area.

You say, "The colleges have a duty to protect their students..." but you ignore the fact that they have "sovereign immunity" to absolve them from lawsuits when they don't. No one is talking about arming frat boys, or drunks in dorm rooms. They are saying allow those who already have a permit to carry on campus like they do off. You have every right to disagree, but don't distort the position making a bogus argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSbZmd-l8n8

[rrneck]

209. I'm not worried.

I can shoot back. They can make all the futile gestures and spout all the virulent rhetoric they want, but if they really want a fight I can give them one.

They're bullies, and all bullies are cowards. Stand up to them and they melt away.