quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Only fools will refute that the correlation between liberal gun laws and the number of guns in society and the amount of gun deaths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon
The Government... aka, The Judiciary, The Legislature and The Executive...  Has the Right, indeed a DUTY 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalDemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


BrutalDemon, in the Preamble?
I read it twice, I didn't see "the govt" in there.
And it only takes 3 people to form a Militia.
The National Guard is "the state" not "The People."
Demon, from reading your posts it seems that you like to "cherry pick" the Constitution.
How's about we get rid of the First Amendment as well?
Or maybe the Tenth too, those pesky states shouldn't have any "rights", correct?
Once you open that door ALL rights are in jeopardy!

The Government... aka, The Judiciary, The Legislature and The Executive... how ELSE do you define the word? Has the Right, indeed a DUTY, to raise, equip, and regulate a standing military force for the defence of the common good. The Preamble says WHY, the Powers of Congress says HOW, and the Powers of The President says WHO is in charge of that standing army raised.

A militia... is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers, but not part of the regular army". How else would YOU define the National Guard? Regular guys, with regular jobs, who are expected to take up arms in a crisis... and NOT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. It doesn't get any simpler than that.


US law is based entirely on the concept of "precedent"... if something has happened before, and a judge has declared one way or another on its legality, then that becomes the example by which all further examples of that event are subsequently judged.

I gave you an example of Precedent as it applies to The Constitution, in the shape of the 18th and 21st Ammendments... Prohibition and the repeal... this was to highlight that not only is The Constitution subject to additions, but those additions can later be removed at ANY time Congress... that's both the Senate and the House... agree to do so by a two thirds majority.


Cherry picking??? How is it Cherry Picking to expand upon, and highlight the real meanings of, the misquoted mantra of "Right to Bear Arms"?

Only the the ignorant, or the maliciously disengenuous, fall back on the tired old arguement that it's their Constitutional Right to own or carry guns.

Your ACTUAL "Right" is to SERVE as part of a Citizens Militia... and that can be taken away from you at ANY time, if you persist in abusing that right, like any disobediant child.


"There are none as blind as those that refuse to see" feels really apt at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

If having a gun is such a bad idea, WHY does every single cop carry at least one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And no mention of Merc's very good point of the largest modern day slaughter being committed with box cutters!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

I totally agree with you,I served my 22 years as well.THE problem is we shall never be safe within our own porous borders.ITS not the guns that worry me its all the nuke and chemical shit floating around..Just  a small amount is enough to kill millions of us citzens..To many student visa are issued without careful screening...bounty

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Well, since students DIE already from getting too drunk, falling asleep and choking on their own vomit, what's your point? That in a dangerous world, you should go unprotected because of what MIGHT happen if you ARE protected?

I am not saying that having a gun is a bad idea.
I am saying to think of the potential outcomes of
handguns on a univeristy campus in the hands of
the students, given the prevalence of drug and alcohol 
abuse and sexual misadventures. 
 
I'd like my kids to worry more about what would happen if they WEREN'T protected.

FB, I applaud your efforts to protect your family, especially your daughters. I am glad that you have trained then with firearm safety and protection.  They would likely be able to handle most situations where other young women would panic.

Booze + Raging Hormones == RAPE.

And fights and assault and stupidy party tricks galore.

Hangun + Girl == SAFE.

And handguns + angry, drunken young males causes all sorts of
trouble and mayhem, robbery, assault, rape and murder.

If having a gun is such a bad idea, WHY does every single cop carry at least one?

I am not saying that having a gun is a bad idea.
I am saying to think of the potential outcomes of
handguns on a univeristy campus in the hands of
the students.
 
Police officers are not what I am discussing here.
They are trained and authorized to have firearms.
That is a separate discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

General reply to the subject -
 
I want to address the specific issue about having firearms on university campus.
So far, no one has addressed the problem of what would happen with the combination
of drugs + alcohol + raging hormones + firearms at college keggers and frat parties.
 
Consider the probable outcomes given that combination of factors.
 

It's already been considered. There is no state in the union that issues carry permits without an intoxication provision, which is similar to the motor vehicle standards. Moreover, carry in bar rooms is prohibited in most states including mine. Alcohol and dangerous machinery do not mix, whether guns or cars. But again... the age of carry is 21 or older so the significant majority of students would not be concerned anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Have you ever lived on or near a major university, Pulpsmack?
But I also have serious concerns about the potential outcomes
of college students bringing firearms into dormitories, classrooms,
their apartments, social activities, etc, for all the reasons previously
listed.
 
Regards,
 
Vendaval
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Have you ever lived on or near a major university, Pulpsmack?
But I also have serious concerns about the potential outcomes
of college students bringing firearms into dormitories, classrooms,
their apartments, social activities, etc, for all the reasons previously
listed.
 
Regards,
 
Vendaval
  

Here's the short version since cyberspace swallowed the more elloquent piece.

- The majority of those you would worry about would be prohibited from having guns regardless because of age.

College students and teenagers obtain drugs and firearms illlegally.


- There is a minority of people that will do whatever they wish regardless of law (including illegally carrying/misusing firearms) they are known as criminals and they have and will continue to carry them on campus whether we allow their fellow classmates/victims to do so as well

And if caught they suffer the consequences.  Can you provide statistics as to how many students participate in this type of criminal behavior?


- We cannot as a society tackle a problem by stealing a freedom from everybody in the vain hope it will protect us from a minority. Generally it just does not work, and in this specific instance it is proven not to work. Moreover, this restriction goes far beyond recreational enjoyment of shooting, like one might enjoy a fine wine, a marajuana cigaratte, or a Sunday drive. This is the deprivation of the ability of EVERY person to defend his/herself from this kind of violence. It just does not make any sense and it is not worth the cost.

Where in my post are getting the idea that I am advocating any type of restriction? 

quote:

we all but lost our constitution, ban guns and we can totally forget about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

we all but lost our constitution, ban guns and we can totally forget about it.

Did you pull this logic from your GI JOE instruction kit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: leatherorlace

you sap-headed juice freak. lol