I heard this guy on NPR at lunchtime. Interesting argument. As he put it, a mother legally can carry a handgun for protection all day long, but when she comes to campus for a night class, she can’t. After Virginia Tech, you have to wonder what would have happened there if students had been armed.
Va. Tech Killings Underscore Guns-on-Campus Campaign
Some college students are pushing for their schools to allow them to carry guns on campus.
They say they should have the right to protect themselves in the event of a shooting like the one that left 33 people dead at Virginia Tech.
Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University senior, has organized a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
The group hopes to convince legislators to overturn a Virginia law that allows universities to prohibit students, faculty and staff members with gun permits from carrying their weapons on campus.
Dysart says that the students at Tech should have had a chance to defend themselves.
Virginia law allows schools to decide whether to allow students with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns on campus.
One state school, Blue Ridge Community College, does allow it. Schools cannot prohibit non-students or other outsiders from carrying weapons onto campuses if they have legal permits.
147–And yet my express words at Post #122 go directly against what you just posted and 2-3 other examples likewise. Is this a form of humor, or are you just the carbuncle of this philosophical society?
Well, not to hijack this thread, I’m going over to epicurious.com and find out why my mayonnaise isn’t working. Better cooking thru chemistry.
In a while——-
>>And yet my express words at Post #122 go directly against what
>>you just posted
Not sure wtf you’re talking about bobbo (as usual). Post #122 had no response to me, and you continued to spout nonsense like:
“Now as to cars or the price of hot dogs==another positive correlation. Not as strong though and no supporting other direct causual evidence.”
I tink you should steer clear of epcurious.com. Bon Appétit is somewhat beyond your culinary skills. Maybe homecooking.about.com would be more your speed. I checked, and they have some fool-proof mayonnaise recipes. Not sure if they’re bobbo-proof, but hope springs eternal.
And if you really don’t want to “hijack this thread”, tell us: SHOULD COLLEGE STUDENTS BE ALLOWED TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS? That is the nominal topic of discussion. Maybe you said (although I doubt it), but if you did, your opinion got lost in a all the verbal diarrhea and bogus statistics.
.. as though there were “supporting other direct causeal evidence” (whatever the fuck that is) that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns if they wish somehow leads to an increase in violent crime or gun deaths.
Woops. Last para in #154 should follow bobbo’s quote.
Should College Students Be Allowed To Carry Concealed Handguns?
Key word is “should”? Dictionary: Expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something/
So broad and conflicting a definition as to be unhelpful. Should they?==NO. They should be safe without the need to carry firearms. Now , in a failed society should they?==Yes. Everything is opposite in a failed society. ((Knock Knock????))
Further, they should be allowed to the benefits and burdens of the law but the law here is specifically written so as to exclude such right. Seems to me whatever general right to carry concealed weapons doesn’t change in character on the college campus–so Yes, under law they should be able to whether in fact they are or not?
I hope thats cleared up now.
Christ on a crutch, bobbo. You can’t even answer a simple question without giving me a fucking headache. Your modus operandi of wearing people down with incessant, uninterpretable bullshit is effective, if somewhat cowardly and annoying.
I hope you have better success with your mayonnaise.
Over and out.
#133 – I don’t agree with a thing you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it
I agree…
But you can boil down my statement in 132 to this: “I don’t care about this issue.”
I’m pretty sure your time would be better spent defending the speech of someone who actually cared about this. 🙂
#138 – I think it is a desire for the government to be COMPETENT in what it does.
Well, the “government” isn’t a monolith. Your local police department is an extension of the government, but it really doesn’t share much with the FDA, which in turn isn’t a local school board, which bears no resemblance to the Senate Subcommittee on Government Competence.
The United States government, as a massive and diverse organization often appears to be less competent than it really is. Medicare, for example, is amazingly efficient and competent.
But honestly, what do you really want government to do to protect you? I contend that there is nothing they can do short of restricting my freedom, and I’d rather live with risk.
#142, nightstar,
Your 70% gun homicide rate only shows that guns are the current favorite tool for killing. If we didn’t have guns we’d use the next best thing.
Give me the choice. PLEASE !!! I would much rather try to outrun some berserk husband swinging a #3 Wood than I would one waving a 9mm.
*
The question posed by Raff earlier and echoed by others; “We don’t know how many would have been saved if one victim carried a weapon”. Well, we do know many have not been killed by shoot outs and homicidal maniacs having duels. Just think of all those Professors still alive because some student had a chance to cool down after receiving a bad grade.
>>Give me the choice. PLEASE !!! I would much rather try to outrun
>>some berserk husband swinging a #3 Wood than I would one
>>waving a 9mm.
Overlooking the fact that you shouldn’t be fucking married women, Mister F, the husband might be a little less berserk (at least in a dangerous way) if he thought you were packing that 1911-A1 in your pants, along with your “rude bits”.
Oh, please… are we still beating this old subject…. okay, okay…. School’s a place to learn stuff… not a shooting range. GigG and company… this is were you take off and start bashing me for taking away your rights.
I would LOVe to stick you all in a room, WITH guns, and let you YELL this out.
Only problem is SOME of you would be using the guns.
Even shooting then threw the Ceiling to make a point is hazardous.
Even if you DIDNT, I would know that IF I counted the guns afterwards, at LEAST 1 would be missing.
#105 – OFTLO—you are mixing up the parallel construction of your jibe, but have you ever masturbated with a gun? Mixed emotions, I’m sure.
Comment by bobbo — 8/21/2007 @ 7:20 am
When I wrote that, I was picturing a gun nut, looking at a slideshow of handgun jpegs on his PC screen, with his cammos dropped to the floor, moaning and jacking off… Not so much using the gun… But now that I think of it, female gun nuts actually can use the gun like a dildo… I just hope she doesn’t get too excited and try to turn on the vibration feature…
These gun nuts suffer from tiny penises and are putting us all in danger, because of it.
One thing would happen – more people would die more often. Simple. You can’t think if you believe more guns in more people’s hands would solve that situation. Or, in short, your a simpleton.
Let me ask you also to be a teacher and tick off some students by giving them poor grades. Now, would you like them to be armed with an object that can kill at a moments notice with less thought and action than a knife, and easier to get than a taser. And that doesn’t even go into the whole escalation thing that never ends until bigger, badder and more illegally automatic weapons are carried by everyone.
Dudes, you don’t even begin to understand the 2nd amendment and it’s original intent. So, why don’t you just go away and leave us Virginia Tech people alone.
>>Dudes, you don’t even begin to understand the 2nd
>>amendment and it’s original intent.
Well, why don’t you enlighten us, frat boy? Tell us what “it’s” original intent is. Don’t teach punctuation at whatever school you go do though, do they?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Perhaps the New Age interpretation reads “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL be infringed”?? Or what?
#129 Get rid of guns On the other hand, insure that only violent criminals (and cops and soldiers) have guns, and I predict that violent crime (including gun deaths) will skyrocket.
My previous comment #90 Remove the cause – guns. The problem is any positive results will not be seen for a long time – 50 ~ 100 years. So this will never happen, and that’s to bad for our children and theirs.
You cannot understand this?
Of course if nothing is gone then the genie can never be put back in the bottle. QED
There is no magic pill to take to fix this issue as what ever is done will at least as long to correct as it did to create.
No one can understand this? If so then this is why the issue persists and will continue to do so for our children and theirs.
How will history look back on us when we did nothing? Fine legacy….
Cheers
And so they argued into the night, none of them willing to give an inch, all of them presenting still more examples to prove their points, none of them bothering to look at the others’ examples.
Well, after mulling it over for a while here, I’ve come to the conclusion all these gun deaths are because they put that god damn fluoride in the water starting way back. Once they started that, gun crimes just took off.
Don’t believe me? Go look it up !!!
It’s that damn fluoride I tell you. Mixed up with corn sweeteners. And Big Macs. Yup, that is the cause of all that gun stuff. Oh ya, and Mexican food too. Yup, that makes Americans crazy about shooting. There is also unproven, but promising, studies that some of those herbs and spices in KFC ain’t exactly what you think they are.
And if you’re thinking this is stupid, just go back and read some of your previous posts.
>>No one can understand this?
It might be easier if you would go lighter on the “italics” and “bold” stuff, so we could just read what you’re saying. If you’re quoting someone, just put it in “quotes”, so that we know. Your italicization is making me seasick trying to decode it.
I think we’re in agreement, though, if all guns were magically taken from Earth, we’d have fewer violent (gun-related) deaths.
Since that’s not going to happen, what’s the next best thing?
#166 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You really don’t understand this? Well perhaps you and countless other Americans cut history class – or the history taught was the American version?
During this period in time countries kept a small regular Army and relied on conscription to swell the ranks during times of need. In order to save time and money the citizens would use their own arms. (Think Swiss) However in the Colonies the amount of arms the colonists were allowed to have was controlled and state security was supplied by the colonizing country – Britain in this case. Therefore there was no standing Militia – security was the ward of the British Army. There were complaints from the colonies as well questioning the effectiveness of the British Army to maintain security.
The framers of the Constitution therefore have included this clause to maintain a well regulated militia and for the citizens to bear arms as this was how the Army ranks were increased in time of need.
Over time America moved from a well regulated Militia to a well regulated Army. However the right to bear arms has not been modified reflecting this move from a Militia to a Army. Here is the root of the problem.
The key words in the second amendment are security of a free State which is the ward of the Armed Forces and not its citizens with a Militia. If not then America needs to dismantle and downsize (instead of supersize)its well maintained Armed Forces to a subsistence level like the Swiss and America relies on its citizens (with their Arms) to repel any invaders – like terrorists. YEAH RIGHT! LOL!!
This is so difficult understand?
Well try and tell an alcoholic they have a drinking problem and yes I suppose it is! So resort to calling me a New Age Hippy Commie Pinko SOB!
Cheers
Ok sorry about the italics…. 😀
Cheers
#171, TIHZ,
Just to add something relevant to your very well made post.
The British wanted to keep the American colonists East of the mountains and away from the Indians. The Colonists wanted to push the Indians further west and take the land. The Stamp Tax, which started the whole No taxation without representation crap was to pay for the British troops to be used keeping the Indians to the West and the Colonists to the East.
The British position was the local militias were not to retaliate against the Indians who defended their homelands. This left the local militias feeling helpless against the Indians and so the “right” of the militia was put into the Constitution.
Of course, that was then and this is now and what happened in the next 200 years after the Stamp Tax shows the foresight of the British position on the one hand and American drive on the other. BTW, guess who won?
#170 I think we’re in agreement, though, if all guns were magically taken from Earth, we’d have fewer violent (gun-related) deaths.
Since that’s not going to happen, what’s the next best thing?
See no italics 🙂
I do agree that Guns are a symptom so the cause of the disease needs to be addressed. China does not have guns everywhere how did they do it? I must be the people.
People with little or no power in controlling the outcome of their life and the pursuit of happiness are easily manipulated.
For example: Why are their so many Gangs? What is the reason for this? Gang members have the power to be in control of their life which they perceive they couldn’t have out side of the Gang. The gang gives them a sense of self-importance, to belong to a elite group.
To site a good example that I have first hand knowledge of in China people do not feel powerless in controlling their life instead of bleak future, the future is bright and full of hope and promise of a better life that they can see happening all around.
This is not Chinese government bullshit – people generally think this way and if you lived here as long as I have you would understand this.
On the other extreme a good example of which I also have first hand knowledge of is fall of Suharto’s regimen in Indonesia. The overthrow of Suharto only took place once the people felt there was no hope, the future was bleak due only to the devaluation of the Rupiah (Indonesian Currency). People could not feed themselves and it wasn’t getting better. Prior to the collapse of the currency people were happy and the future looked promising and it was!
How much of the American dream is still possible today? Well that has been outsourced, sorry.
Cheers
#173 That’s right Ralfie ol boy! Thanks for posting that! 😀
Cheers
#171: If you are correct, which I state you are not, then the second ammendment should be repealed. The founding fathers did not trust standing armys, which is why Title 10, section 311 defines the militia as: All men from 17 to 45, and with prior service to age 65, and women who are members of the National Guard.
Also, why is that every other time the founders wrote “people” they meant individuals, and wrote “state” when they meant collective rights.
>>However the right to bear arms has not been modified reflecting
>>this move from a Militia to a Army. Here is the root of the
>>problem.
Either the root of it, or the solution to it. I guess it depends upon your viewpoint. If you don’t mind CCTV cameras in your bedroom and the suspension of habeas corpus, I guess it’s a problem.
>>in China people do not feel powerless in controlling their life
>>instead of bleak future, the future is bright and full of hope
>>and promise of a better life
Well, God bless them. Whether or not they are “powerless in controlling their life” remains to be seen, I guess. In comparison to Mao, I imagine life is peaches and cream. Although I’ve never been to China, I have a lot of friends who have. I’ll stick with what bobbo call the GOUSA, at least for now. We may be ruled (temporarily) by a megolomaniac, mentally-challenged dimwit, but at least as long as we don’t want to go to his “town hall meeting”, we still have the freedom to say what we think.
#171,#173
So, according to you two the only reason for the Second Amendment was to allow the States to assemble militias? That logic does not hold:
St. George Tucker from the BlackStone’s Commentaries (1803)
FYI, that I got that link from here so it is the author of that link’s editorial comment at the end.
How does the gun in every backpack solution work with 6 or 7-year-olds. If you need to be reminded of that possibility, Google, “PA school shooting”. That was in the middle of Amish country. Which pretty much vaporizes any “it can’t happen that way or here” assumptions. If you find a way to eliminate or reduce the risk to young kids, wouldn’t most of the risk for other groups go away? Starting with a group most likely to be able to defend themselves seems like a bad plan. Plus, gun play in elementary school isn’t popular with the kids. That’s why so few parents sent the kids off to schools and day care centers in Bosnia in 1993 and even fewer to Khe Sanh in the spring of 1968.
>>How does the gun in every backpack solution work with
>>6 or 7-year-olds.
Who the fuck is suggesting guns in every backpack for 6 or 7-year olds? We’re talking allowing adults (at least with respect to the right to buy tobacco products and die in wars; and before the recent pseudo-prohibition, the right to purchase a beer) to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
To imply that anyone is suggesting we give .45s to kindergarteners is throwing out a red herring so stinky not even the vultures would nibble at it.
#177 “Well, God bless them (Chinese). Whether or not they are “powerless in controlling their life” remains to be seen..In comparison to Mao, I imagine life is peaches and cream.”
Yes you are correct with respect to Mao but it far exceeds that. The American dream is doing well in China. Chinese people are able to now own their own home, having their own business if they like. Of course this progress is slow to filter down to the country side peasants but it is only change is much slower as I said. Freedom of speech? Well for many Chinese they don’t feel the need to bitch too much – its their culture.
#178 “The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
So the point is that if Americans are not allowed to bear arms they lose the right to abolish the US government if needed? As stated in the Declaration of Independence?
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Really? Like that is EVER going to happen. Sounds like those guys in Montana!
Cheers