More Guns on Campus?

Posted By: disgustedamerican @ 02/16/2008 10:48:32 PM
Comment: The real terrorists are in the white house,congress,and own the media outlets.

I was going to make a comment to disgustedamerican but after this post, I think it is useless.

I want to make two points. first to all the pro concealed carry people like myself you need to stop labeling anti gun people as strictly "liberal." there are many liberals that are all for gun rights. That's a right in our constitution not a left or right thing. The bush administration even sided with the D.C. law banning handguns if that's any indication where the great "conservative" stands on gun rights. Second I wish there was as strong a lobby for all our constitutional rights as there is for gun rights. Thanks to bush and the good job he has done in frightening all of us with the fear of terrorism he has erroded many of our rights that we are guerenteed by our constitution. Everyone should read about H.R. 1958. that's a scary piece of legislation

Allow Students to carry firearms. Responsible students. How did these "quiet" students with no records manage to get firearms before they killed? How will you know if that young man or woman who just passed you with a concealed weapon on campus is about to take a life? And, I enjoyed that example given of when having a concealed weapon works: that Colorado Springs "woman" was a former law enforcement security guard. Give me a break.

wkgator: The point is that if the killer at Virginia Tech had not had such easy access to firearms he would never been able to kill all those people so easily-the vast majority of the people he killed would still be alive today if all he had access to was a knife or baseball bat.
911 was a completely different scenario which I think you know well.
Are you honestly saying you want to live in a country where children have to carry firearms to protect themselves? Do you honestly believe this is the answer?

What ever happened to Morality, Personal Responsibility and Free Choice?
Dr. Lyle Rossiter, A top psychiatrist
"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

"a social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state ???
CNStars

The following statement from the article is a most disingenuous and self serving statement, falsely offered as immutable fact.

"It's ridiculous to say someone with a gun could have saved the day," said Brian Malte, the state legislation and politics director at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He incorrectly assumes that only police officers are capable of acting effectively in this type of situation. Secondly, if a gun could not have saved the day or at the very least mitigated the body count, why do police officers and others charged with protecting lives against deadly threats choose firearms to do so? If Brian Malte and his ilk have their way, all future students and others on campus will be relegated to the position of random victims with no choice in the mater of exercising their natural and constitutionally protected right to self preservation (defense)!

Some of us choose to live in the real world where safety is not and cannot be guaranteed by any government or bureaucratic entity. Or for that matter, any private entity licensed to do business with the public. The falseness of this promised protection and safe environment is laid bare almost daily in the news. If one chooses to go unarmed against the real world possibility of facing deadly threats, that is their choice and I would not think to interfere. However, to deprive me of the ability to effectively defend myself is unconstitutional, inhuman and immoral.

If concealed-carry laws goes through, then it would only license people like suspected Northern Illinois shooter Steven P. Kazmierczak to carry their weapons. I like how ony 12 hours of training will determine who will be permitted to carry firearm. Didn't Kazmierczak teach on the campus after getting his degree in sociology? People jump on a bandwagon of solutions, but what would it take to counter acts like Kazmierczak, who obviously had greater problems than a degree, teaching post, and a concern about humanity could ever mend or address. In addressing safety researchers and politicians have to address an ever-larger problem of the entitled belief that harming innocent bystanders will somehow rectify severe loss or internal conflicts. Permitting the conceal-carry laws would be like my packing heat whenever I fly just to protect myself from terrorism in the air.

Imagine for a second the scene: You've just received a text message letting you know there is an armed individual on campus (a shooter). You have a concealed weapon but you are not exactly where the shooting is taking place. How many people do you suspect on your way there? Or, better yet, how many people with concealed weapons now drawn do you encounter? Who is the actual shooter? As confusing and chaotic as these incidents are, I can only imagine how, with weapons everywhere, it can turn even more dangerous and ugly.

Not everyone has to be armed. Many opponents think allowing a CCW holder would me that everyone would have a gun. Carrying a firearm comes with a higher degree of responsibility, and (I feel) many would not will not carry for that reason. I commend those that take responsibility for their own safety. Many people so afraid of liability that they will not take responsibility for anything, and you can't sue the cops for not being therebbeigettintherthertherontime.

People who obtain conceal carry permits must pass thru rigorous background checks, including cominal and mental records. Sure we are all responsible for our actions and owning a firearm is a big responsibility.

I'd still rather like to have a chance to protect my life when some deranged nut is shooting at me and my classmates, and if you think the cops are gonna be there on time, even 2-3 minutes may already be too late..... all the cops can do then is clean up the mess thats left behind.

I dont get it with all these people that would just rather sit in class like a defenseless sitting duck and be shot at.......

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny
one is to deny the other. And the purpose of government is to insure our
rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the
carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed.

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a
constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that ???If
the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in
the right with impunity.??? (That means they can't punish you, folks!
And wouldn't you think lawyers and judges would know this?)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no
steenking permits!"

Neil Evangelista
Personal Protection Instructor
Boca Raton, FL