Posted on 04/26/2008 5:43:15 AM PDT by marktwain
A representative from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argued for a more sensible policy for carrying concealed handguns on college and university campuses at Walter Hall last night.
“It’s hypocritical to say you can bring a gun into a 300-person movie theatre but not a 300-person lecture hall,” said Stephen Feltoon, Midwest regional director of SCCC.
Feltoon, a 2007 graduate of Miami University of Ohio, spoke for a 40-person group as part of the SCCC’s weeklong protest of concealed carry laws across the nation that forbid concealed handguns on college campuses.
The OU Second Amendment club — comprising about 10 active members who participate in shooting activities and safety lessons — invited Feltoon to speak for the occasion.
Current Ohio law states that you cannot bring a concealed firearm on campus unless you have a license to do so and the gun is locked in your car or you are in the immediate process of locking it in your car, Feltoon said.
“That’s it,” he said. “One sentence removes my right and yours to carry a concealed firearm on campus.”
Feltoon refuted several counter-arguments he often hears, like the idea that college students are often highly stressed drinkers and drug users. He said it is illegal to carry a gun while under the influence of alcohol whether you are on campus or not.
SCCC began as a Facebook group after the shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech last year. The group then held its first empty-holster protest on Oct. 22, 2007.
After another shooting at Northern Illinois University, the groups’ membership grew to about 22,000.
“If Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois taught us anything it’s that putting up a sign that says ‘no guns allowed’ really doesn’t work,” Feltoon said.
ABOUT TIME. The 2nd Amendment was meant to EMPOWER Americans...not shackle them.
I would tell them to go deactivate all security systems at their bank and put up a sign...
"No Bank Robbery Allowed."
That's not hypocrisy, that's a double standard. Hypocrisy is when someone does something he advises (or legislates) against others doing.
As a starter, let all ROTCers and faculty pack loaded heat in class.
Go Bobcats.
To parse, if a legislator passes one law for students on a campus he doesn't visit, but passes better law for himself in places where he IS likely to be, then that might be hypocritical.
Perhaps we can agree on 'inconsistent?' =)
It’s a double standard. One set of rules for colleges and another for everywhere else, even if the age ranges of the clients are equal. Why are college students somehow inferior or less responsible than the general population? (I thought people who went to college were supposed to be role models for others, not deserving of contempt or patronization.)
I don't know. But they are. Hormonal imbalance?
I wish I knew what it would take to get FL off its fat-ass on this one. As a whole the “shall-issue” carry law is pretty good in the state, but the always politically correct “school-zone” exclusion is seemingly impenetrable.
“I don’t know. But they are. Hormonal imbalance?”
Exactly. They are too young and irresponsible. Drinking, voting and gun ownership ages should be set at 21. Driving should be restricted to daylight hours with an adult present until the age of 18.
Anyone with a legal CCW permit should be able to carry concealed at colleges. Open campus colleges cannot provide security for students or staff.
In order to make your case that college students are less responsible than the general population, it doesn’t suffice to provide a few anecdotal cases of college students doing something irresponsible. There are many cases of non-college-students in the same age range doing things a lot worse than that, e.g. being gang members and and murdering people - and yet gang members are eligible to go to movie theaters.
Again, let me propose that if there is momentum at the State level to allow CC permits on campus, and effort should be made, again at the State level, to voluntarily empower CC holders on campus to everyone’s benefit. No reason to even ask the liberal college administration.
That is, the State should also mandate a voluntary pager system to *notify* CC students and faculty if there has been an incident on campus. Once they are paged, they step into a hallway and make a cellphone call to a recorded message from the campus police, with information about the incident.
This accomplishes several things. To start with, most CC students and faculty would be unaware of an incident on campus unless they are notified. But notification gives them precious time to prepare themselves, emotionally, and mechanically, with their weapon.
Second, the call would suggest to them that if they chose to do so, they should find a covered position near the front entrance of their building, to both observe, and be in a safe defensive position. Importantly, not to brandish their weapon, however, so they are not mistaken for the shooter, and certainly not to go hunting for the shooter.
This would provide both intelligence information and some degree of site security, as a covered position near the front of a building would have a good area of observation if the shooter was in the open; it would help protect the unarmed people in the building; and it would help to shorten the duration of the incident.
A lot of CC students and faculty would not be interested in such a system, but some would. And even half a dozen such people on the campus would strongly increase the degree of difficulty for the shooter. The shooter would make his presence known, but the CC holders would be in the shadows ready to strike if needs be.
It would turn a right into an opportunity.
“If Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois taught us anything it’s that putting up a sign that says ‘no guns allowed’ really doesn’t work,” Feltoon said.
Actually, it says, “Deranged maniacs: open killing field inside! Nobody can or will resist your massacre! Come on in and open fire!”
What's sorely missing these days are people who are, or have been, 'near' a gun and aren't put-off by it. Imagine retrieving a pistol from a concealed holster (say, behind the back) in mixed company and laying it on the counter for them to observe (adult show-and-tell, if you will). Some would be aghast, some would go "cool, can I look at it", one might faint. These are not reactions that adorne a free republic but are endemic in slave states.
The right to carry brings with it the opportunity to lessen fears associated with arms among those most unfamiliar. If guns could generate the kind of 'yawn' that displaying say, a drill might, we will be on our way toward what the founders had in mind. But, our 'betters' won't allow it.
I can only ask "why", as it serves no purpose to keep people in the dark as to guns. Crime stats defy the this illogic.
Campus shootings, mall shootings; good thing the flock is as large as it is 'cause, "it probably won't happen to me" seems the message coming from our elite 'leaders'. Which misses the point entirely, which is: no one should be a victim of Johnny Crazy when and if, he goes off his meds. Not a free people, anyway.
I specified pager notifications, because in many situations, it’s polite or requested that people turn off their cell phones. But there would only be *one* reason why your pager would go off. Also, I don’t see the problem here as comfort with guns, but having a gun doesn’t matter if you have no idea you need one—right now.
As far as people being comfortable showing off their guns to others, I would *never* be comfortable in a situation like that, any more than I would be comfortable if someone had a large knife in their hand while gesticulating like an Italian in an animated conversation. There are far too many dumbasses in the world who think, or act, like guns are toys. Guns are for grownups, or kids who behave like grownups.
Just two or three accidental discharges around you, and you tend to get testy about these things. And having to jump behind a big rock, which I have, because some idiot is trying to cap a rattlesnake between his feet in a rocky river bed with a .45, makes me downright annoyed.
“They are too young and irresponsible. Drinking, voting and gun ownership ages should be set at 21. Driving should be restricted to daylight hours with an adult present until the age of 18.”
They can join the service at 18 and go off and defend our country and die for our country, but you think they are too young and irresponsible.
Yes. Absolutely. In case you were wondering, I was drafted at age 19. I couldn't vote or drink for two more years. The military guarantees supervision, which teenagers need desperately.
Maturity comes in stages. Rights and privileges should also come in stages.
1) College students and administrators are ignorant about what the Constitution says about gun rights.Also, given that colleges trumpet a well-rounded education, they practically obligate themselves to opening shooting ranges and offering classes in gun training, as opposed to hypocritically abridging student's 2nd and 14th A. protections by outlawing guns on campus.2) College students simply cannot afford the legal costs of fighting for their gun rights.
3) Both of the above.
The problem is not that he is ignorant of the Constitution, the problem is that he despises it.
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.