Arizona’s Legislature is debating a bill that would allow someone with a concealed-weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities, the New York Times reported. The bill was prompted by recent university shootings but was originally intended to include K-12 schools. “I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,†said state Sen. Karen S. Johnson, the bill’s sponsor. Utah is the only state that now expressly allows people with concealed-weapon permits to carry guns on college campuses, but more than a dozen states are considering such legislation, the Times reported. Opponents argue that allowing armed students on campuses would create more danger than it would prevent.
380 Comments
No, of course not.
Sigh, you just love to see a shouting match, don’t you! This topic was ran into the ground the last two times something like this was brought up. Statistical speaking, this is the lopsided one legged man in the butt kicking contest. One side can point to the times that an armed citizen has stopped a shooting spree and the other side counters with how repugnant the idea of having guns in school is. Both sides score and both side lose. You are still in more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence. Every day Schools are open and the day ends without an incident. That does not make the news and at large no one hits their knees and thanks God that their child did not die from being shot in School.
Could allowing CCP owner to have their weapon with them while on School ground stop such things, the simply answer it yes. There is enough static to show it has been so in the past, but in the same vane statistically speaking compared to the number of days where nothing happens is it warranted? It is more happenstance then actual threat level.
Problem i see is that most college kids are under 21
Writerdog
Come on, don’t be a wet blanket, everyone loves a good gun fight on the old WeBlog.
You’re comment is pretty darn reasonable and accurate. I would urge you to revisit your statement about lightning however- “more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence.”
“Gun violence” is not the only way people die or are gravely injured. Think knives and beatings with blunt objects including fists. May seem a small point to you until you are the victim of such.
While this legislation is largely motivated by high profile massacres like the one at Virginia Tech it addresses the overall issue of the right of all people to be able to defend themselves against violent attack. While the risk of being the victim of an attack like the one at V.T. is extremely low at any given campus on any given day there are other types of crime to be considered. There are plenty of cases of assault, robbery, rape, and murder that occur on campuses across the nation on any given day. Forcing responsible adults to be defenseless simply because some people have some Utopian view of campuses as entirely safe and peaceful places serves no one.
Opponents of such legislation cite imaginary scenarios of unstable 18 year olds going off on history professors for berating them over their last paper on the political ramifications of the whiskey rebellion. They use the same old tired images of OK corral shootouts over choice slots on the bicycle racks that proved to be false across the nation regarding CCW in general.Tired false arguements proven utterly baseless.
Forcing defenslesness for the sake of FEEELling safe is cowardice and shear stupidity.
Tom Paine
Who’s advocating allowing CCW on campus by 18 year olds?
I think Arizona is considering such a law.
Some already do, just not legally. The ones I have read about who go crazy with their guns are the psycho’s or criminals who don’t have a legal right to carry.
Need I point out the 2 incidents over the past 2 weeks in Israel involving attacks on schools, both of which were stopped by armed administrators and students?
Of ocurse, I understand in Isreal military training and service is mandatory.
ANY citizen who is over 21 and has no felony or high misdomeanor charges and who takes and completes a gun course and passes a range firing test should be allowed to carry a weapon anyplace at anytime he or she chooses to do so.
Well, college students DRINK. Especially at frat parties which are on campus.
Just saying.
Including into a police station, or a military base, or the White House? Possession of a CCL is not proof of eligibility for Heaven. Timothy McVeigh was proof of that truth.
I have mixed feelings about it, simply because maturity levels vary during the college attending years.
In a place like Israel, young people are trained either in mandatory Army service or their Defense force. There is no equivalent in the U.S.
University are similar to small towns in size and although a different scope. They are a community and communities need protection.
I’m not so sure Professor Havaad Prissypants would like the idea of Front Row Student A packing a Glock as he hands him his third “F” for the semester.
Here in Atlanta they are digging graves today for 2 college girls killed in one day! Probably for their cars:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/03/07/unc_0308.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/03/07/auburnarrest_0307.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
This is just ONE DAY of killing on “safe” college campuses. We need MORE armed people! Not less.
Guns are for losers.
College ‘kids’ are adults by many standards, especially age. They should be allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense.
So how many guns do you have J R?
I think college kids should be able to pack heat, besides school shootings, how many times have you heard of a college girl being ambushed and murdered while shes jogging late in the evening.
I imagine it would be hard to job with a gun though.
I only own one gun and I can’t conceal it, its a 12 gauge pump action remi.
Firearms are a large part of our heritage. They are a large part of our culture. I would like to see universities have a comprehensive firearms program. Courses in firearms history, design, legislation, etc.
They should have firing ranges and inter mural competitions. Programs for CCH should be an integral part of the university educational program.
You are still in more danger of being stuck by lightning than being a victim of gun violence
I wasn’t aware that over 10,000 people a year were killed by lightning.
Legally Licensed Concealed Carry Holders;
Have NO felony convictions.
Have never been convicted of domestic violence.
Have NO history of mental illness.
Have passed background checks and have their fingerprints on file with local law enforcement and the FBI.
Have passed mandatory State training in both the use of a firearm and the applicable law.
Can you say that about the other people on campus or anywhere else for that matter?
Of course they should be able to carry anywhere including campus.
PS: Jr Posted March 8, 2008 at 7:34 am
“Guns are for losers.”
No Jr, you’re the loser and I am confident could never qualify for a CCW permit.
CCH should apply without regard to age, imo.
That’s because the largest portion of its value at PREVENTING violence in the first place lies in bad guy’s inability to discern who’s packin’ and who’s not.
Game theory says the efficaciousness of CCH in PREVENTING violence stems from the amount of knowledge held by the bad guy. If he can’t accurately identify who has a gun, and if he must therefore assume everybody has a gun (and this assumes s/he’s rational: ah, the Achilles heel), then he’s far less likely to use his gun or knife or baseball bat (scrolling down the continuum of rationality) in the first place.
Kids who are around that age, bad guys included, know practically by osmosis how old that person over there is. If they know that nobody in the group by the person they wish to harm is 21, then I’m arguing that they’re more likely to do harm.
The law should apply to anybody who can enter the campus. It should not be passed if doing so gives bad guys the very information that a well-crafted CCH law is designed to deny.
I’m pretty pissed off at the NRA for turning into a bunch of appeasing namby-pamby rights-giver-away-ers. They turned into a marketing arm of small weapon manufacturers. The NRA promotes registering concealed-weapon-carriers in governmental data bases and systematically promotes denying 2nd Amendment rights to a significant segment of the American population.
I’m talking, of course, of the government’s unconstitutional ban of guns in prisons.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?!
Convicts in Prison have the right to religion. Convict-run prison newspapers are testament to their right to freedom of the press. If charged with a crime, prisoners have the right to face their accusers, to a trial by jury, to their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Convicts in prison cannot be subjected to double jeopardy.
But every American’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is endangered by the unconstitutional denial of incarcerated prisoners their right to keep and bear arms in prison!
What’s more, it just makes sense. Just as advocates of Concealed Carry laws have proven that more guns on the street will make criminals have second thoughts about committing crime, those same criminals will be circumspect about committing crimes behind walls if they know every one of them is packing heat. What better way to prevent prisoner rape than to arm the potential rape-ee? Who’s gonna shiv a snitch if his target’s ready to drill him with a .44 Magnum?
Now, you may say something bleeding-heart pinko-liberal like, “What about the guards? Won’t prisoners shoot the guards?” What a faggoty-assed, piss-ant un-American pantywaste *you* turned out to be. Modern prisons are constructed to permit guards from never coming in contact with prisoners. Ever hear of bullet-proof glass? Ever hear of remote-controlled gates and doors? Ever consider that, perhaps, guards themselves might be armed?! (The only reason prison guards aren’t all packing heat is the ill-conceived, *UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!* effort to deny convicts the right bestowed to them by God, by God!
Monkey”boy”
You forgot the right to vote. They should have the right to vote in Federal elections.Only question, would they vote for candidates in the district in which their prison resides or the district in which they were convicted?
Can you say President Hillary Rodham?
Woohoo! HiLARious, MH!
I second that motion.
If you really believe in the 2nd amendment, you should let INMATES carry guns.
C’mon, Nathan and GMC, you have no problem with that, do you?
While I realize the Monkey’s post was a simple, or more accurately simpletons attempt at humor he ignores long established federal and state law.
“Federal and state laws govern the establishment and administration of prisons as well as the rights of the inmates. Although prisoners do not have full Constitutional rights they are protected by the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Prisoners’ rights are limited. For the most part, jail and prison inmates may demand only a “minimal civilized measure of shelter” (Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984 [3d Cir. 1983]). Generally, courts follow three basic principles when deciding whether to recognize a particular right. First, an inmate necessarily gives up many rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of society; second, an inmate does not relinquish all constitutional rights upon placement in prison; and third, the constitutional rights retained by the prison inmate must be balanced against the security concerns of the prison.
The established rights of prison inmates include FREEDOM OF SPEECH and religion;
Prisoners’ rights can be infringed for security purposes. Prisoners have the right to freedom of speech, but prison officials may search their mail, deny a wide variety of reading materials, and edit the content of prison newspapers. Prisoners have the right to adequate space, but they may be confined in isolation for long periods, even years. Prisoners have the right to freedom from restraints, but their ankles and wrists may be shackled when they are moved. They may also be temporarily strapped down or otherwise restrained if officials believe that they present a danger.”
“Boxlock” offers –
“Prisoners’ rights can be infringed for security purposes.”
The Constitution of the United States of America says, “The right to keep an bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”
Just what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, “Boxlock?”
As you don’t seem to understand Monkey, constitutional rights can be withheld when they conflict with security purposes as has been long established by Federal and State law.
Just as minors or those with mental conditions do not have full constitutional rights to the second Amendment and others as well.
Monkey do you fit into one or more of those categories as I’m sure Jr does?
Monkey likes to argue to the absurd extremes.
Lets look at it from another angle.
What buildings, typically, do not allow guns?
Airports, but there is airport security.
Court Houses, but there are all kinds of law enforcement officers.
Schools, but, but, well, —-
It’s ridiculous that a professor I know who is not just a CCW permit holder but also a CCW instructor and nationally certified range safety officer is not allowed to carry on his campus. He would be much better able to protect not just himself but his students and other faculty in a crisis.
“Boxlock” squirms –
“…constitutional rights can be withheld when they conflict with security purposes as has been long established by Federal and State law.”
Uhm, “Boxlock?”
There’s no longer-established law than the ink-and-parchment of the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended.
The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms “…shall not be infringed.” Just what part of those four words do you not understand?
“…shall NOT be infringed.”
Get that?
Yup. There have been other constitutional rights that the SCOTUS has ruled may be infringed. You can’t shout “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house, for example. But the 1st Amendment does not say the right to speech, assembly, religion, petition “shall not be infringed.” Only the 2nd Amendment.
You’re arguing diametrically against the black-letter law of the 2nd Amendment when you advocate that 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed.
You’re Sarah Brady without the balls to admit it.
Whoa, Monkey you live in a foggy, foggy world.
Are you a product of a bad public school system?
Law was established long before the Constitution. In fact the Declaration of Independence which created the original USA was signed in 1776, and the Constitution not until 1787.
The founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution did not write those documents for idiots such as yourself, but for what they considered reasonable individuals that were capable of reading and applying logic. They had no idea there would be people with as little understanding as yourself being given a forum such as this.
“Econ101″ squirms –
“Monkey [sic] likes to argue to the absurd extremes.”
It doesn’t seem all that extreme to read the only article of the Bill of Rights to include the words, “…shall not be infringed,” into the discussion.
I’m on your side, here, “Econ101.” Hell yes! Guns in college! Guns in kindergartens! Guns in bar rooms! Guns in prison!
What part of “…shall not be infringed,” do you not understand, “Econ101?”
“Firearms are a large part of our heritage. They are a large part of our culture.”
Yeah that is true. It’s probably also why the USA FAR outpaces the rest of the world as to gun violence.
I was playing with toy guns from the time I was a toddler.
But I have raised my own son in a different way. He has had no toy guns and no exposure to real guns.
He has no interest in guns at all.
“Boxlock” flounders with –
“Law was established long before the Constitution.”
Perhaps you should look up the word “constitution.”
All law relevant to governance of the United States of America begins with the Constitution of the United States of America.
That’s what a constitution is for, “Boxlock.”
And then you add:
“…the Declaration of Independence…” which, of course, was a document of rebellion, not of governance.
Regardless of stuff written before the Constitution of the United States of America — the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, love letters from Alexander Hamilton to his mistress — the only one that established the government we Americans live under is the Constitution.
And the only right specifically and explicitly can NOT BE INFRINGED is the “right to keep and bear arms. Look it up. Read the words.
Walk on by…..
Monkey”boy”
Kindergarteners should be able to carry if they can as well.
IF you are in a store, and an armed hold up takes place, and there are 4 or 5 folks in that store who have a licensed CCW on them, and ONE of them pulls their weapon to stop the robbery perpetrator… HOW DO THE OTHER CCW folks know that the one who pulls his weapon isnt part of the robbery??? What does he do, holler: “STOP I am legal to carry this weapon!” What is to stop one of the other LICENSED CCW folks in that store from drawing down on the FIRST CCW holder who pulls his/her weapon on the perp???
Anybody have a magic answer for this one?? I mean, I dont think the CCW folks meet outside the store, and go in as a group so they know each other, right??
Guns will make everyone safer that’s why Iraq is the safest place to be. Why just let college students bring weapons to school, why not 12 year olds or six year olds?
Monkey, again FULL power of the Constitution does not extend to mental defectives, like yoursel…well…you know, or those who have abused them.
There are three ways to prove things in the physical world;
The scientific method, which doesn’t apply well here.
The Historical/Legal Method, which does.
And Logic, which does.
The denial of 2nd. Amendment Rights to prisoners can be justified with both the Historical/Legal method and the application of logic.
You seem to be working at a tremendous disadvantage in both those disciplines.
The Constitution did not abolish existing law.
“Kindergarteners should be able to carry if they can as well.”
I would say that at the least this makes you an unfit parent Heckler. It also raises doubts as to your sanity.
Chas, yours is a hypothetical situation of which thousands could be constructed but belong in the fiction writing category not the historical real world. And of which “a magic answer” would be a foolish attempt to argue with fools who drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience living there.
A similar case could be made for not wearing seat belts creating a greater danger, or that a fire extinguisher could explode, or that helmets could further increase the risk and severity of harm. None hold up under ANY historical or logical examination.
But that’s not your agenda is it? No, yours is one of political motivation and is transparent.
Boxlock
Well said.
“British Common Law” was not abolished by the Constitution.
The laws of the individual states, likewise, remained intact after ratification of the Constitution.
Anybody have a magic answer for this one?? I mean, I dont think the CCW folks meet outside the store, and go in as a group so they know each other, right??
——————————
The CCW folks will be the one squeezing the tomatoes or stooping over their shopping carts instead of holding a gun to the store manager’s back.
“Boxlock” –
The question at hand was:
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
JR
If you had half a whit of sense you’d realize I was illustrating Monkey”boy”s absurdity by being more absurd.
As for fitness to be a parent, I promise you that I won’t be teaching either of my kids to kneel at the feet of some government agent for their subsistance.
So, is there something unlikely about 4 or 5 CCW folks being in a store at the same time a robbery is being perpetrated??
Is it also unlikely that at least one of those CCW people would draw down on the Perp??
Is it unlikely that the OTHER CCW folks might wonder of the one drawing down might be a part of the robbery??
Come now, folks… of course it is a hypothetical… but it was OK yesterday when GMC posed a hypothetical….
So, what are the OTHER CCW folks to do when one of their own pulls down on the Perp??? How do they know that he/she is NOT part of the robbery?? They dont have badges, ya know…
I would hope the CCW person thinks before he pulls his/her gun and drops the suspect. One should never pull their weapon unless they intend to use it.
Pulling your weapon and then making a statement that you are going to “use it” in a dangerous situation where split seconds count, is a sure way to make things go bad.
So, then, that makes CCW a license to kill?? Without an arrest?? Without Miranda?? Without a trial?? A death sentence for a crime not worthy of the death penalty??
Is that what your solution is?? Hmmmm…. Monkey, I dont think we’re in Constitutional Country anymore!!
Chas
“So, is there something unlikely about 4 or 5 CCW folks being in a store at the same time a robbery is being perpetrated?? ”
I’d say the only place that’s likely to happen is in a gun store or maybe a sporting goods store.
Although it could happen at a Sam’s Club on a busy day but they likely wouldnt all be clustered around the cash registers.
Hell yea, no more flunking students!
What mental midgets!
You don’t have to have a trial, or a death sentence or issue a Miranda to defend yourself, your family, your friends, or anybody else close around you from immediate lethal threat.
And immediate lethal threat (perceived) is the only justification for using a lethal defense.
Guys, EVEN YOU TWO are smarter than that, quit digging yourselves deeper into idiocy than you already are.
Heckler, if as many folks had CCW as some of you all advocate, I would submit it would be highly likely!! You are trying to spin away from the proposed scenario… Do try to stay on point…
Chas
The only people I’ve heard refer to a CCH permit as a “licence to kill” are folks who go squishy in the pants over the concept of using lethal force in self defense. “Natural Rights” and all that stuff makes some folks uncomfortable, makes them somehow responsible for their own well being and all that.
Chas
“if as many folks had CCW as some of you all advocate”
I’m not sure what you mean here. There’s only about 12000 who have permits in Kansas so far. I’ve certainly never claimed that the numbers were vast.
Oh, Boxer??? Even the police have to identify themselves… as in “Police! Freeze!” before shooting a Perp… One can hardly argue that a Perp pointing a gun at a store clerk is a lethal threat to the person with the CCW… I suppose the clerk COULD per chance be a relative of the CCW… but that wouldnt be terribly likely…
And, yes, the CCW is taking upon him/herself the role of cop/judge/jury/executioner…. when such is not necessary, unless he/she is actually threatened — As I said, CCW is a license to KILL…
I realize there are different rules that would apply if the Perp was on the PROPERTY of the CCW person… But a store robbery would hardly qualify for that scenario…
I see the use of deadly force to be a major legal problem for the shooter, when an alternative is clearly possible…
After all, these CCW folks are allegedly highly trained in the use of their weapons…
Chas
But for the sake of your hypothetical, assuming by “rob” you mean rob a teller at a register or at the service counter- it would depend on how many of them actually saw the act from the beginning. Now speaking for myself I would tend to believe that the Bad Guy would be the one pointing a gun at the teller. If anyone else with a gun had it pointing at the guy with the gun on the teller I might assume that they where a Good Guy. Again, speaking only for myself in a situation like that, I’d just back the hell away and find cover until I could figure out what’s what and who’s who. If I had one of my kids with me I’d just cover us and get as far away from the situation as possible.(run like hell)
Now that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, Heckler!! LOL Most reasonable!!
Somebody yesterday mentioned the value of CCW for some young woman out jogging… The thought occurred to me… It could be extremely difficult for a young woman, or man, to CONCEAL a weapon while out jogging… Not sure how much good that would do the jogger!!
I mean, most people dont wear very concealing clothing while out jogging!
Chas
There are some holsters options that work well for jogging, although it helps things to have a small, lightweight weapon. A 40 ounce 14 round Para-Ordinance 1911 would NOT be ideal for jogging.
OK, Heckler… so where would a weapon be concealed while jogging?? You see many jogger outfits lately?? Except for winter, most of them wear the bare minimum of clothing… Mny guys are only out in running shorts — and women routinely wear shorts, and some sort of tight fitting top… (athletic top)… Where do you propose Concealing a weapon with such clothing?? It isnt the size of the gun I was referring to… it is the CONCEALED factor of the law…
Chas
“One can hardly argue that a Perp pointing a gun at a store clerk is a lethal threat to the person with the CCW… ”
The self-defense statutes do allow for using lethal force in defense of others. But from a legal standpoint it better be a clear and imminent threat.
Chas.Posted.
“Oh, Boxer??? Even the police have to identify themselves… as in “Police! Freeze!” before shooting a Perp… ”
Again, absurd! Under immediate lethal threat they can and should fire as quickly as possible stop the threat.
The person under threat does not have to be a relative, or even known to the CCW or police, for them to take lethal defensive action.
This entire argument is prefaced on, as you say “he/she is actually threatened”. Of course you can’t shoot someone simply because you don’t like what they are doing. There has to be a lethal or grave bodily injury threat first and always, if that condition is present then no warning is mandated for defense.
But Boxer — Police officers are routinely placed on temporary suspension, or at least desk duty, following an incident of deadly force, until investigations are finished… And in most cases, they ARE required to identify themselves… unless being fired on directly!! I believe you can check that one out for yourself…
The beauty of the CCW law is that a perp. should well realize that if they threaten someone with death or grave bodily harm they may be taken down and killed without warning by the police or anybody carrying.
That’s a hell of a good deterrent.
Chas
It would pretty much require either some loose garments or a very secure fanny pack type of container. I’ve not tried them but some folks claim that “Smart Carry” (formerly known as “Thunderwear”) works well. Its an elastic belt you wear under your pants or shorts with a pocket across the lower abdomen or groin which holds the weapon.(or wallet or knife or whatever) It would require wearing slightly loose shorts. But some folks say it works well. I’m not cozy with the the idea of a pistol in that region.
gotta go
“I’m not cozy with the the idea of a pistol in that region.” — Heckler –
I wouldnt think anybody would be!! LOL
Chas. I have checked it out. It is a part of the legal instruction given in CCW classes.
I can’t legally even banish a weapon unless there is an immediate bodily threat. Certainly warnings are necessary when a situation lacks that immediate harm prerequisite. But if moments matter in a situation of protection from bodily harm no warning is necessary, or even advised. A warning then only gives them time to kill their victim or those trying to stop it.
Boxer, I do believe there have been a number of studies done that show that most Perps who do armed robberies never have any intention of using their weapons… They are just a tool for intimidation… There are numerous cases where it has been learned after investigation that many weapons brandished during armed robberies are not even loaded… Again, the intimidation factor —
Granted, anyone present with CCW would not know if the gun is loaded or not… It just seems to me that the CCW individual would be much better off to disable the Perp, and wait for police to arrive… and let the system take over… If the CCW people are as well trained as has been alleged… disabling a Perp should be no problem… After all, it has been posted here MANY times that CCW people are better trained at using weapons than many police officers!!
I’m out’a here.
Don’t threaten anybody and you likely will never ever have to worry about it.
Here’s my problem in a nutshell… Where in our unique system of justice is Armed Robbery deserving of a Death Sentence??
And yet, so many CCW proponents defend use of deadly force without blinking an eye…
Perhaps it may be shocking to some that I am going to differ with some of my liberal friends, but I really don’t have a problem with duly certified CCP holders carrying their weapons on college campuses.
Not an issue, from my perspective. I don’t really think that it would make a damned bit of difference, but it won’t really hurt.
I don’t know for a fact, I assume that certain crimes - DUI, etc. - may cause a CCP to be revoked. I don’t think that Joe College is going to shoot his Poly - Sci professor over the “F” he got on his paper titled “GWB is the Greatest President Ever” nor do I think that Jill Junior is going to blast away at a sorority party because Judy was kissing her boyfriend.
CCP is not a concern of mine - I just do not see that MORE guns is an answer that is going to solve these problems that we face.
“Where in our unique system of justice is Armed Robbery deserving of a Death Sentence??”
Sorry, Chas, but with all due respect, Armed Robbery can easily turn into multiple murders and no one can really tell the intention of the robber.
Maybe he is just a kid that needs a few bucks - maybe he is a two time loser looking at life without parole for a third conviction.
It is a tough call, but if you are armed and are committing a robbery, you don’t have much room to argue with what may or may not happen.
I do not currently own a weapon, but if you break into my house, you will first deal with my dog that will try to bite your nuts off, then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.
Catching a .357 slug or a lead pipe in the head isn’t going to make much difference.
If you break into my house the dogs will be glad to see you!
And if somebody breaks into your house, you SHOULD defend yourself!! Nobody needs a CCP on their own property defending same…
Personally I have an old Louisville Slugger by the door for that purpose
Those not in custody don’t get Miranda rights.
Monkeyhawk, you are a bit short sighted about the wordings of the Constitution.
You are trying to take one part of the Constitution and say that it is the law when in actuality the Constitution is written with consideration as a whole.
You have to apply the other articles, sections and amendments to properly interpret your rights.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” does not give you right to disregard the rest of the Constitution.
There is a pretty good chance that your house will be broken into. There is also a pretty good chance you and/or your family will be home when it happens.
You need a plan.
A lot of families have a plan for fire, or tornadoes but not one for break ins. (Actually, very few families have effective disaster plans, but even fewer have a plan for a break in.)
If some one breaks into your house you and your family should know to all go to the same room, lock the door and call the police. Stay there until the police arrive unless some one is missing or unless they try to break into the room.
“Wiseman” offers –
“You are trying to take one part of the Constitution and say that it is the law when in actuality the Constitution is written with consideration as a whole.
“You have to apply the other articles, sections and amendments to properly interpret your rights.
So exactly where in the “other articles, sections and amendments” does the Constitution state that
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed?
Since I live in AZ, I guess I’ll briefly weigh in.
Even if it passes (it won’t), Janet will very likely veto it. The. End.
But it makes for a nice 2nd amendment flashpoint, now,don’t it?
P.S. No time to engage this dabate (thankfully!), but I would offer some choice Dogbert advice:
***
Dilbert: “What’s your position on gun ownership, Dogbert?”
Dogbert: “I believe everybody should have the right to own guns.”
Dilbert: “What about automatic weapons?”
Dogbert: “I’m all for them. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have the weapons of their choice. However, I also believe that only I should have ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn’t trust the rest of you goobers with anything more dangerous than string.”
Dilbert: “What about Charlton Heston?”
Dogbert: “I’d keep the string away from him.”
***
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate LEGISLATION, the provisions of this article.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Except in the commission of a felony, then you pretty much left the majority of your protections and rights at the front door.
Once in custody, you can get your rights back IAW the law. During the felony, you are pretty much considered hostile and treated as such.
“Regular” gets it wrong again with –
“…in the commission of a felony, then you pretty much left the majority of your protections and rights at the front door.”
Nope. Only a court of law can determine if an accused as committed a felony. Cops can arrest</i< you and charge you with a felony, but every defendant is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
Nice try MonkeyHawk.
There is no Juris Prudence in a hostile situation.
My apologies to the attorneys, but dangerous situations such as a robbery where hostilities are involved (armed robbers)the hostiles have pretty much given up any rights until they are in custody.
Imminent Danger situations trump case law sorry.
Qualifying that, there are procedures and practices that should be followed in order to prevent unnecessary injury or death.
So, if students are allowed to CC, would that extend to Faculty, and Staff?? Janitors?? Yard Maintenance?? Librarians?? Food Service?? Secretaries??
Or JUST students??
Hopefully everyone Chas.
What on earth!?!?
To this day I still don’t understand why my dads name will pop up on my computer…
That was me above
Chas
I believe that the laws in question would simply state that CC permit holders could carry on campus.
Under that understanding, you could be a parent, visiting a student, and have a weapon.
As far as janitors and other employees?
Well, Employers do have rights and responsibilities over employees.
I do not know if the legislature was trying to trump employer/employee regs here.
Pernsonally when it comes to self defense and CC im more of a edged weapon kind of guy myself,
Chas
One other thing, we are not talking about
“punishment” here.
If I were to find out that someone had done a crime, and I walked up and shot that person, when there was NO threat? Yes, that would be wrong.
However, If anyone is a threat to anyone else, and the threat is clear and present, I can do pretty much whatever I want, to defend the victims involved.
That is NOT punishment. That is protection of the innocent.
The rights of the victims always trump the rights of the criminals, so long as the threat is present.
Tom
Tae Kwon Do instructor always told me that a man that prefers a knife over a gun, “probably knows how to use it, and might even enjoy it”
I have a very old, very sharp WW II German Nazi Bayonet very close to my bed if an intruder should get that far…
chas has a bayonet, ws has a lead pipe.
You guys are doing it wrong.
Sorry, but tactically speaking, choosing a knife over a gun for personal protection when you could have a gun instead is simply absurd.
I would rather have a nice shotgun or tactical rifle over a pistol for protection as well.
“You guys are doing it wrong.”
How’s that Fleet - ya don’t think that a lead pipe to the head wouldn’t deter an intruder - especially is he is dealing with a 105# dog at the time?
The last and only time I had to deal with an intruder, I convinced him that leaving my home was preferable for him rather than have me bash his brains out with a fifteen pound dumb bell.
PS - it was someone that I knew and I knew he wasn’t armed.
My Dad got this one from Berchtesgarden in Austria… Belonged to an SS officer… Name is still on the handle, and the blade… pretty nice piece of hardware!!
“Tom Paine” –
Looks like the Vermont and Alaskan laws do a lot of infringing, something the 2nd Amendment specifically outlaws.
“Nathan” should be able to carry his “nice shotgun or tactical rifle” anywhere and everywhere he goes.
Chas was your father in the 3rd Infanty or was he a paratooper?
Tom,
The point was that you should use the best option for your defense at the time.
If you can use a pistol, what sense does it make to choose a knife or lead pipe instead?
If you are able to use a shotgun, what sense does it make to have a pistol?
If you are able to use a tactical rifle, what sense would it make to have a pistol?
There are certain weapons which provide you a much better advantage in many different circumstances.
There is not any argument against that.
A knife or pipe will only provide you protection at extremely close distances. Your chances of injury, fatal wound, or death are significantly higher taking a knife into a fight vs another knife and/or especially against someone with a gun.
This is common sense stuff here. Yet several people here act like having a pipe or bayonet is the best thing since sliced bread.
“Yet several people here act like having a pipe or bayonet is the best thing since sliced bread.”
Oh, bullshit.
WS Clark,
So why don’t you have something better for protection than a pipe?
Do you think having a pipe will do you much good if that intruder had a pistol instead?
Wrong Nathan… just dont want a gun in my house…
Chas,
Are you afraid of a gun? Why wouldn’t you want one in your home?
What if an intruder brings one into your home, are you going to hope that you can get close enough with that bayonet and stop him from simply shooting you?
Would you want a picture of the missing link in your home??? I just dont WANT a gun in my house… My dogs will let me know if anybody is trying to get it… My Louisville Slugger or Bayonet will work just fine!!
“Do you think having a pipe will do you much good if that intruder had a pistol instead?”
I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it, Price. I have good quality dead-bolted doors, motion-sensitive outdoor lighting, an alarm system, a small dog that barks at every noise outside and a large dog that has a bark like the Hound of Baskerville.
I don’t spend my time worrying about the bad guys breaking into my house.
Like wearing my seat belt, having a fire extinguisher in my garage and my kitchen and a smoke alarm, I am prepared but I just done worry about it.
Most likely, in the next year or so, I will buy another gun - probably a S & W or Ruger .357 Mag - but that is because I like to shoot, not because I am all that worried about the bad guys.
The problem with a pipe or a bayonet or sliced bread is you have to be close enough to touch them. That’s too close.
“The problem with a pipe or a bayonet or sliced bread is you have to be close enough to touch them. That’s too close.”
Depends on how good the sliced bread is - I make a mean loaf of sourdough.
I like this gun - probably will be my next - I prefer revolvers over autos, so this just might be it.
Ruger .357 Mag SP101……………..
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_SP101.htm
Tom,
I understand that sometimes you might not have what is best and must make do with what you have.
My comments were in regards to thinking that a lead pipe, bayonet, or bat is enough when you do have the opportunity to get something better like a pistol.
WS Clark,
If you have all that stuff, then why brag about having a lead pipe too?
If you don’t think you need a gun for protection, then why would you think you need a lead pipe for protection?
Chas,
Anyone who has anytime at all in defensive training would seriously disagree with your bayonet or bat being just fine.
If someone has a gun, your bayonet or bat will be virtually useless.
If someone has a knife or other blunt object, then your chances of winning are probably less than 50% depending on how well either of you are able to wield those weapons.
Somehow, no offense, I doubt you have much training with either of those weapons. If you did have training with them, you would understand how they are not the prefered choice for defense and are only used as the ultimate last defense.
The shit will really have had to hit the fan for me to be in a knife fight or blunt weapons fight.
Chas,
You still didn’t answer my question. What is it about a gun that makes it so offensive to you that you wouldn’t want one in your home?
Hey Chas, is it a bayonet or a dress dagger?
What you are describing sounds more like a dagger. Neat things those. And are you sure it is a name or is it just German words?
“There is a pretty good chance that your house will be broken into.”
No, really there isn’t. And it is even LESS likely it would happen with anyone home.
“If you have all that stuff, then why brag about having a lead pipe too?”
Huh? I never “bragged” about having a lead pipe - I merely mentioned it.
This hardly sounds like “bragging.”
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
This is just more typical low-priced stuff - meaningless.
Did you have a point to make, Price, or is this just more of your bullshit?
The pistol is a great equalizer.
It allows people who don’t have the skills to fight, the strength to fight, or the ability to wield weapons like blunt objects or knifes in a fight the ability to defend themselves.
All one must do is grasp some basic marksmanship fundamentals and become familiar with their pistol to be able to defend themselves very effectively against a multitude of much bigger, stronger, and more skilled fighters or others wielding a knife or blunt object.
Even if someone else has a pistol and is attacking you, you still have a pistol of your own and the ability to defend yourself.
WS Clark,
That last quote wasn’t mine.
My point was that you indtroduced the fact that you have a lead pipe for defense and that you have even used it.
My question for you, is that if you have all those other security measures, why do you feel the need to have a lead pipe too and not a pistol?
Nathan
Posted March 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
Sorry, but tactically speaking, choosing a knife over a gun for personal protection when you could have a gun instead is simply absurd.
I would rather have a nice shotgun or tactical rifle over a pistol for protection as well.
—
Who am I to argue with a USMC armorer?
ANS: no damn body.
Recommendations?
I used the google with “tactical rifle” on my internets and M40 popped up. It looks like a really short big bore shotgun, although some of the stuff next to it said things like “1/2 inch 100 yard accuracy still applies.”
wtf does that mean?!?
Seriously. I agree with Hank: the odds are too high that every American homeowner will suffer a break-in, and coupled with the fact that I’m a home-body I think I’d be a fool to ignore the likelihood.
If you’d care to, please elaborate. Do you have specific recommendations?
“That last quote wasn’t mine.”
It was posted under your name and sounded just like you.
“My point was that you indtroduced the fact that you have a lead pipe for defense and that you have even used it.”
So why the bullshit that I was “bragging” about a lead pipe?
“My question for you, is that if you have all those other security measures, why do you feel the need to have a lead pipe too and not a pistol?”
One, I prefer revolvers over pistols and, two, I sold my last revolver to a police officer (he begged me) and have not purchased one since.
I just don’t worry about home intrusions all that much………………….
Damn, I don’t worry about much of anything all that much.
But right now, on another tab, I am checking out the S & W offerings in revolvers.
It’s not like I feel I need one for protection, but I do like to shoot.
WS Clark,
No where did I post this:
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
Those are your words:
WSClark
Posted March 8, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
“I do not currently own a weapon, but if you break into my house, you will first deal with my dog that will try to bite your nuts off, then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
Pedant,
Thank you. I am by no means some perfect specialist on this.
However, I have taken many classes on self defense, defensive pistol shooting, knife fighting, hand to hand combat, deadly force, and the escalation of force.
It is basic common sense that having a pistol beats having a knife or bayonet any day of the week and if you have the ability to have a pistol over a knife or bat you should use a pistol instead.
To quote you, Price, learn how to read……
From MY post:
This hardly sounds like “bragging.”
“then a half crazy old man with a lead pipe looking to split your skull open.”
I was quoting myself, dingbat.
Even if you have a knife or bat against someone with nothing, you have to get withing reach of them to use them and your knife or bat can easily be taken away from you.
They can really be taken away from you or removed from your hands by someone trained.
Then you are going to be fighting them hand to hand or against your own knife or bat.
Good luck with that. Me, I will simply pracitce Sight alignment, Sight picture, Trigger Control, and Breath Control as I put enough rounds into them to stop the threat.
“Even if you have a knife or bat against someone with nothing, you have to get withing reach of them to use them and your knife or bat can easily be taken away from you.”
Or you can have a big dog with a bark that will raise the hair on the back of your neck.
I took Judo lessons briefly (about a week) from a former American Champion in Judo. One of his spiels at the beginning of the class was, “If you run across with someone with a gun and you are unarmed, cooperate and hope for the best.” He as implying, no matter how fast you are or how skilled, a gun usually wins.
That dude was a special athelete, only 155 pound guy I ever saw bench press over 350 pounds.
Nathan, why are you concerned that I dont want to have a gun in my home?? I have a good home security system… I dont feel much of a need for owning a gun… Dont like them all that much… too darned noisy!!
JR — My bayonet definitely has a NAME on it… I still read fairly fluent German… The previous owner was a Colonel… It is made to fasten on to a rifle… BUT, it is housed at the moment in a very fine made leather sheath…
Nathan — I can do what I need to do to an intruder with my baseball bat, and my bayonet… One puncture wound with that bayonet and no intruder will be going anywhere… except possibly to the morgue…
Chas,
How exactly do you plan on giving that intruder a puncture wound when he has a pistol?
Ok, thanks Nathan. I have had my last 2 posts flagged as “waiting for moderation,” so I doubt anybody has seen them.
If you somehow find yourself with time to waste here elaborating on tactical rifles, and why they’re preferable to shotguns or handguns, I’d for one sure be happy to listen!
Nathan, the intruder would FIRST have to get through a highly secure infrastructure, with extremely well made locks… IF he does that, I will be waiting for him behind the door… He would never SEE me… Nuff said??
I dont NEED a gun, Nathan… period!!
Nathan, what makes you so insecure as to think anybody would want to breakinto your house??
I keep little or no Cash… I have no jewelry… I have no illegal drugs or guns… At most, there might be a Hummel collection!!
Computer systems arent stolen too often… too bulky to carry!!
I feel very secure… Why dont you??
Pedant,
It depends on the situation. A pistol is a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon.
It can be used for offense, but when it comes down to it, you want a bit more firepower at your disposal when on the offense.
If I were indoors, I would want to have a nice tactical shotgun with short stock. It would give you greater firepower and stopping power.
In any shooting, you want to stop the threat as quickly as possible.
If the person you are shooting can still shoot back or fight, that is bad.
If I were outdoors, a nice tactical rifle would be my choice.
A pistol is really only effective at very short distances.
A rifle gives you much more stand off power at ranges of 100 yards and beyond.
A pistol will give you stand off of maybe 25 yards unless you are really taking alot of time to aim.
A pistol round is much more easily deflected and has a much lower muzzle velocity.
A rifle gives you the ability to have more accurate, more deadly, and more reliable firepower getting onto the threat.
I would really like to get one of the new personal defense weapons which are being made for security details these days.
The knights armament 6×35 round looks great.
Too bad you can’t have the better ammo for them as a mere civilian.
Chas,
I feel very secure. I have a pistol.
Aha. Excellent. Thank you, Nathan.
Nathan… why would you be on the Offensive, if you are attempting to DEFEND your property or your life?? Doesnt sound like a good choice of words to me!!
Chas,
The word gun, doesn’t sound good to you. Why would anything else?
I would try to explain it to you more, but you still have yet to grasp the basic concept of how a pistol is better for defense than a bayonet….
Well, then, I feel quite secure as well… And I dont own a gun… never have… dont plan to…
Chas,
I couldn’t really care less if you ever choose to own a gun or not.
I am simply not going to let you convince someone else out there in the real world that having a bayonet for defense is better than a pistol.
I think the idea, Chas, is to not let your weapon limit your options. I am no gun dude, but even to a gun idiot like me it makes sense.
If you can’t go on the offensive, and your limited to defensive actions only, you’ve cut your available escape options in half. Not good.
To me, this makes perfect sense tactically.
I am curious as to why I saw some reluctance earlier when I raised the question of not just arming students on campuses, but also Faculty, Staff, and other employees… Cant quite figure out why there was reluctance to have all parties on campus have CC approval… well, 21 and over!!
Good lord, “Nathan” –
You’re moving into nutso territory again. You want your “nice tactical rifle” for its accuracy and firepower at 100 yards? To defend your home from invaders?
Paranoia strikes deep.
Too bad it’s not a dagger. Those things are worth a bunch of money.
It’s probably a K 98 type. That was the standard issue. Though sometimes the SS had better stuff.
Heh, the Germans had a thing for knives and daggers ceremonial, decorative, AND lethal.
Nathan from your posts, it almost sounds like you secretly hope to get to use your guns.
I mean it is one thing to worry about a break in. But when you start worrying about standing off threats at 100+ yards? Geez if someone is threatening me at 100 yards I can pretty much just go the other way.
Then your reason for keeping the weapons is not JUST for defensive purposes?? Seems like that changes the entire scenario a bit…
Chas,
The bill proposed in Arizona will allow anyone with a Concealed Carry permit the ability to carry on campus.
It didn’t specifically say only students.
Most states already require that anyone buying a pistol must be 21 and I am pretty sure that to get a Concealed Carry permit anywhere you have to be 21 as well.
So limiting the bill to those 21 and older is only a natural extention of already existing laws.
Well, the thread only mentions Students…
I ponder the presence of CC students on a college campus… And I ponder if any of those students might get some idea of being on the offensive — like some have alluded to here… I also wonder how long it would be before those under 21 would want the same CC privileges as the older students… Also, would the college/university offer the gun training course as part of the course catalog??
Chas,
And the article linked in the thread clearly explains the proposed bill.
Try clicking on the link and reading it.
It is in the 2nd paragraph.
In the amount of time it has taken you to ask the same question twice you could easily have read it by now instead.
Oh, I get it… only YOU are permitted to continually ask stupid questions, right?? OK… I already read it!!
By the way, this argument reminds me of my friend. She always chided me for checking for traffic that might be coming down the wrong way before I crossed a one-way street (where we both worked, at Beechcraft).
Like I told her: sure, it seems silly to check for traffic that wouldn’t normally come the wrong way down a one-way road (ie, it seems silly to armor up for bad guys who are 100+ yards away), but if you don’t check that direction then any old lawbreaker will be the guy who takes your life. As in: anybody who drives drives the wrong way and that you don’t see will kill you dead (ie, for any number of reasons you could be attacked by a nut). Lesson: never assume that existing laws will protect your health or even your life.
My goal is to live this life, not to die due to the actions of a nut.
Daylight Saving Time starts tonight. Does that mean “Nathan” will start accusing “Chas.” of not being a Christian tonight one hour earlier?
I could see funds well spent to secure campuses, and use more armed security ON campus… Limiting entry points to the campus would be a good start — All entrants pass