Skip to comments.Arizona Weighs Bill to Allow Guns on Campuses
Posted on 03/05/2008 6:55:24 AM PST by PurpleMountains
This is not a good idea. My friends know that I possess a concealed-carry permit and own guns, and that I am a staunch defender of every law-abiding Americans 2nd Amendment rights, but the people who want permit-holders to carry guns on campus are not thinking clearly.
First, let me say that both extremes are wrong: designating gun-free zones in areas like a college campus obviously does not work and invites disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
I bought a Kel-Tec PF9 yesterday. It should make a fine pocket piece to carry on campus. I hope the gun-free-zone goes away soon.
Well written, but I must disagree on your biggest point-
The people that comitted suicide after shooting up other people did so for attention. If they had simply gotten plugged at the door without having been able to kill someone else first, they likely wouldn’t have gone into that situation in the first place.
You want to commit suicide? That’s easy! You want to make a “big name” for yourself while doing so? Take someone else with you.
I have a Kel-Tec P3 and Walther PPK, both .380’s. The Kel-Tec is unbelievably small and lightweight, but seems as reliable as the Walther.
Why would they have been “plugged at the door” unless they shot someone first?
Wouldn’t they have to train the gun on someone first? Or is this a hip shot cowboy? All functions I’ve ever been to had ushers anyway. Someone is at the door, even in an theater.
No. Sorry. It is the author that is not thinking clearly. Yes, I'm aware of some of the stupidity that college kids get up to. This fact has ZERO bearing on the fact that kids who are raised to RESPECT firearms will continue to do so no matter where they are carrying. That the only way to overcome the idiotic, hoplophobic MSM bias ininstilled in the Amerikan Idle masses is for more people to carry EVERYWHERE.
Victim disarmament zones were a bad idea to begin with. Imposing a billion and one restrictions on those wishing to carry are equally idiotic.
College age kids are STILL adults once they hit 18. This "sliding scale" crap is what is creating a generation of fully grown KIDS incapable of running their own lives.
Your second biggest point seemed to also be that people untrained with guns will have them.
I suggest advocating one step in our direction then. Arm everyone, everywhere.
When an entire society has guns... who among them wouldn’t be familiar with a gun?
“...shall not be infringed.”
Used to be, yeah. It’d be awfully nice to get back to that too.
“The Kel-Tec is unbelievably small and lightweight, but seems as reliable as the Walther.”
The one thing I have read is that the older models had problems with extractors breaking. I have been shooting Wolf steel case ammo without incident so far.
The assumption that more than a very few 18 year-olds have CCW permits is false. To my knowledge, none of my under-21 students is approved for CCW.
What will really happen here is that faculty and staff will be allowed to carry if they have a permit. I have a CCW permit. I will probably be armed.
I think that allowing a critical mass (note that phrase) of undergrad students to just have firearms can be very foolish. They live together there and essentially rule the campus by dint of massive population %, and are not known for “sober” and truly mature behavior (sorry, it’s the truth) when all massed together.
However, I would definitely be for allowing all staff, faculty and GRAD+ (older, more sober, and small %) students to carry.
(And this is regardless of laws about what age is already allowed, or if you have carry permits or not.)
This is a by-product of the dumbing down of schools to the point of even allowing riff-raff in such an establishment in the first place.
The immature are exactly what screening processes are for, and even then- ...shall not be infringed.”!
Actually, it is because of the moral degeneration of our society, where it’s all about “party,party,party” (i.e, drinking, drinking, drinking, as if that were fun; what boring people). They are a very strong presence on campus, not just a few miscreants. It has become a whole culture, not just on campus, but everywhere.
Why does a campus have the right to “screen”, but not the right to say it won’t allow firearms?
The 2nd A applies to GOVERNMENT not harrassing or arresting you by abridging your rights on your person or home or generally “in public”, not to particular establishments. I can allow or not allow guns in my own home; so could campus. Government can’t stop me from telling visitors what to do when they come to my place, any more than they can tell me I may have a firearm myself. They CAN tell me to drop it at the door of the court, because that is uniquely the government’s “place”.
Why does a campus have the right to screen, but not the right to say it wont allow firearms?
Arms are a Right, education is not.
And most of these schools (Virginia Tech for example) are GOVERNMENT schools.
In Utah you have to be 21 to have a CCW.
My daughter will be a CCW holder at 18 years old...so will my son.
My daughter is a Master Sharpshooter with the Junior NRA at the age of 13...she has been well trained on the proper handling and usage of her firearm.
I would be proud of her if she were able to save someone because of her training, though I do hope she never has cause to have to use her firearm in self-defense
I have no problem with CCW for 18 year-olds.
I just wanted to point out the unreasonable fear by most anti-gunners and aparently the author of the article that lots of students would be armed. That will not be the case. The vast majority of students will still be unarmed and those that have a valid CCW license are not a danger to law abiding citizens.
I’d be willing to bet that vast majority of CCW permit holders will not be armed in class.
The only armed students that concern me are the ones without a CCW permit. They are the population that the nut cases will come from.
It sounds like you trained your kids properly.
So you oppose government always requiring people to disarm at court buildings and various major gov complexes?
Government-run or not (and many are state government), each organization/group/etc still has the right of association. That includes e.g., me excluding you from bringing a gun or your smokes in my home. Doesn’t matter you have a natural right to bear arms or smoke; I have a natural right to exclude you or your items on my property.
The irony here is that there should not even BE a “requirement” for any permits at all.
CCW is to me, an infringement on rights to bear arms. There is no “licensing” required in the real natural world. That is what CCW is - and why does it have to be “concealed”? Seems to me “out in the open” is alot better deterrent.
“Seems to me out in the open is alot better deterrent.”
You’ve got that right. We have a couple of guys here in NH that regularly hold “open carry cleanup days.” They pick a neighborhood and clean it up while carrying firearms.
I think they have educated the local police in their area.
I had hoped I wouldn’t put you on edge with my comment. I know you meant nothing against CCW holders.
It is the ones who carry that haven’t gone through the CCW process that is dangerous to society...I believe you are correct that not many 18 year-olds would hold a CCW license, but if they did it would mean they were able to pass the test and the background checks to become licensed.
I have several firearms, all loaded, none under lock and key. My kids know they don’t mess with them unless there is a good reason to. If I were being attacked, my daughter knows it would fall to her to help...my son is trained to use the .25, my daughter can use the .25 semi, .45 semi, and the 9mm. She’s not really comfortable with the .44 special yet.
They have both gone through the training for Eddie Eagle, and my daughter has been a participant in the Junior NRA since she was 10.
I know I don’t have to worry about either one of them using a gun in a bad way...they have been brought up to respect guns...knowing what they are capable of!
Actually, no such “right to smoke” is implied in the Constitution.
And if it’s a State government run school, guess what? They ratified the Constitution.
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
A person’s house is NOT signitory to the Constitution, but the representatives in the State are.
And FWIW: Guns are allowed in courthouses. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070521_1_A1_hDist56332
And the weapons limitations laws didn’t have ANY backing until 18 USC 922, enacted in mid 1980’s. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt
(Yes, that includes limitations on bringing them into federal or state government buildings)
You have a personal Right to restrict anything you want- within your own property and given the implied consent of the person being denied said rights.
We are talking about government institutions, one’s that are supposed to be held to the laws set forth by the Founding Fathers. These laws were set in place to limit government, not people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.