Poll

What do you think about responsible Concealed Carry Permit holders carrying concealed weapons at school.

For Ban
2 (20%)
Against Ban
5 (50%)
I don't Care
1 (10%)
I don't know
1 (10%)
Comedy Option
1 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Author Topic: Those evil damn guns on campus  (Read 21423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Those evil damn guns on campus
« on: October 10, 2007, 01:21:44 PM »
Information on Concealed Weapon Permits in North Dakota.

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/BCI/CW/CW.htm

Basically, you get screened, you have to go through gun safety, pass a test, and get approved by the Sheriff or Police Department.  You cannot "print" or allow your gun to be seen or make it known that you have one. 

There is a lot more information at that link.

Remember:

Fact:  Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains it below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005)

Fact: People with concealed carry permits are: 
•  5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
•  13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

Fact:  The U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes”    and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

http://www.gunfacts.info
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 02:30:16 PM by JakeJZG »
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2007, 02:04:11 PM »
Some additional information might be useful.  What does a person have to do to obtain a concealed weapon permit?
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2007, 08:36:26 PM »
Simplest way, in grand forks, is head down to the police station, go upstairs to the sheriffs office and ask for information on obtaining a conceal carry permit.  They will give you everything you need.  Except a gun.
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2007, 09:07:36 PM »
I'm not interested myself, but I think that it's fair to ask what someone has to go through for it.  Is there a background check?  Some other kind of check?  Or will they just hand them out to anyone with enough money and enough time to fill out the paperwork?

See, I'm glad to let people with concealed permits carry on campus--but I want to make sure I trust the agency giving them the permit in the first place.  If the police department has strict enough rules on who is allowed to obtain such a permit, I will trust their judgement.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2007, 01:15:34 AM »
I'm not interested myself, but I think that it's fair to ask what someone has to go through for it.  Is there a background check?  Some other kind of check?  Or will they just hand them out to anyone with enough money and enough time to fill out the paperwork?

See, I'm glad to let people with concealed permits carry on campus--but I want to make sure I trust the agency giving them the permit in the first place.  If the police department has strict enough rules on who is allowed to obtain such a permit, I will trust their judgement.
As I stated before it's at the link.

You should not need an allowance to exert your rights per the Constitution.
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2007, 08:28:19 AM »
Thanks for the info.  I missed it when you added it.

I don't see where carrying a concealed weapon is covered in the Constitution, by the way.  If you're going to carry, then carry.  I wasn't commenting on the legality of it, I just wanted to make sure that, since I don't know if a person is carrying a weapon, someone trustworthy does, which is covered by the link you posted.

I'm a little unclear on what you're fighting for at the moment--did UND win on banning guns on campus, so you're urging everyone to get a concealed weapons permit?
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2007, 10:12:03 AM »
Thanks for the info.  I missed it when you added it.

I don't see where carrying a concealed weapon is covered in the Constitution, by the way.  If you're going to carry, then carry.  I wasn't commenting on the legality of it, I just wanted to make sure that, since I don't know if a person is carrying a weapon, someone trustworthy does, which is covered by the link you posted.


I'm a little unclear on what you're fighting for at the moment--did UND win on banning guns on campus, so you're urging everyone to get a concealed weapons permit?

Somehow I was referring to owning a firearm and being able to have it in your home.  Now sure how I made that leap.

We are fighting to prevent the University from breaking our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 10:13:44 AM by JakeJZG »
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2007, 04:15:22 PM »
Why the hell do you need to carry a gun on campus?

I believe when that part was put into the constitution it was a very different time.  I am not saying I am against guns, I am just dont believe that everything can be related back to supposed constitution rights.  The right to bear arms was added in at a later time and it was to ensure the security of an beginning nation, not the sole super power in the world:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was for the purpose of protecting the nation, not so people could carry guns around children at school for the hell of it. 

They ban alcohol and tobacco on many campuses and on school grounds, why are you not up in arms about that?
N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2007, 04:18:33 PM »
You cannot live by the constitution directly.  It had to be changed already (Amendment XIII) to be more in line with what was right and the changing times.
N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2007, 12:51:58 AM »

Why the hell do you need to carry a gun on campus?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

This is a link about why I feel the need to carry a firearm on campus.

Quote
They ban alcohol and tobacco on many campuses and on school grounds, why are you not up in arms about that?

Because if someone brings a cigarette to campus and starts blowing smoke in everyone’s face, no one goes to the morgue.  A gun on the other hand....  Also I have yet to see the section in the constitution that deals with smoker’s rights.

Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Nowhere in that statement does is specify only when the country is new.  However it does say that bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free state, which is what we have, until we strip ourselves of the ability to protect it.  A citizen, who buys a gun, goes through the required training, has a background check, and accepts a new, larger set of laws, is a regulated person eligible for a militia.  They are also known as people with conceal carry permits.

Quote
not so people could carry guns around children at school

Wolves like Cho Seung-Hui prey on sheep, people who choose to believe that a school is a sanctuary of learning where nothing bad ever happens.  Personally, I would rather carry a gun, so when the wolf comes for me at least I can have a shot at stopping him.

Quote
It had to be changed already (Amendment XIII) to be more in line with what was right and the changing times.

Changing times?  Give me a day when no one is murdered or threatened by another, and then the guns can be left at home.

100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2007, 02:14:12 AM »
You cannot live by the constitution directly.  It had to be changed already (Amendment XIII) to be more in line with what was right and the changing times.

Why don't we just amend out the First Amendment- or hell let's just throw all 10 under revision since we really are in "different" times.

The First ten amendments are not to be trifled with. 

Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2007, 11:11:27 AM »
Quote
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

This is a link about why I feel the need to carry a firearm on campus.

While it is sad that people have died at school, the percentage that have died or been injured is extremely low when compared to the number in school.
As of October 2005 there were 75,780,000 people enrolled in schools in the United States alone, according to the list there were roughly 295 people injured or killed.  This number includes the killers, teachers, police, others not directly related, and people from other countries (remember my numbers included ONLY students in the united states, yet I included teachers and people in other countries in the number of people injured and killed).  Take a look at the following percentage:  .00000892295 that number represents the percentage of people that were injured/killed in 11 years of school attacks.  I think your  arguement is flawed.  There is no over whelming threat to your safety and security that would require you to carry a gun on school grounds. 

Lets throw in a few more numbers.  The information I used above was the number of shootings over 11 years compared against enrollment of one year.  Lets make the number a little more realistic.  I will take that enrollment number and multiple it by 5 to get a better idea of how many students there were. I used 5 because I was unsure of enrollment numbers each year and I am still be extremely conservative (plus the percentage is getting extremely low).. so that would put us at 378,900,000 students in the United States over the 11 year span that would equal out to .0000007785 percent chance that you will get shot at school.

I would argue you are pretty safe.

My source for number enrolled http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2005/tab01-01.xls

And just because you have a gun does not mean that you can stop a killer from coming and attacking others.  I have heard of studies that say those with guns can cause more damage.  I believe we have police to protect the security of others not some random people that think its necessary to carry a gun for some odd reason.

Also I believe it is the people that are bringing the guns to school that are the ones that are killing people.  I forgot that you all have a perfect shot, were expert negotiators, were trained in matters like this, will some how be able to over power the gun man, and that it was you that were suppose to replace the police.   :evil6: Dear God


Quote
Because if someone brings a cigarette to campus and starts blowing smoke in everyone’s face, no one goes to the morgue.  A gun on the other hand....  Also I have yet to see the section in the constitution that deals with smoker’s rights.

No one goes to the morgue, what have you been smoking? 


- There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.
- Lung cancer - 3000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS (second hand smoke)
- Heart disease mortality - an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 deaths are caused from heart disease in people who are not current smokers, but who are exposed to ETS

info from http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm

No one goes to the morgue, that sure is funny.  If I were you I would be a lot more concerned about second hand smoke the someone coming to school and killing you with a gun.

Its not in the constitution because smoking was not a medium used to defend the nation during that time.


Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


Nowhere in that statement does is specify only when the country is new.  However it does say that bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free state, which is what we have, until we strip ourselves of the ability to protect it.  A citizen, who buys a gun, goes through the required training, has a background check, and accepts a new, larger set of laws, is a regulated person eligible for a militia.  They are also known as people with conceal carry permits.

Are you serious?  Because I am sure it was on the minds of those that wrote the constitution (and amendments) that they would need to some how predict the future.  The constitution was written shortly after we declared our independence from another nation, a time when we needed people with arms to protect against oppressors.  The militia was in place to protect against aggression, if I am not mistaken we have a military for that purpose.  The constitution was written in a time where the rights to carry guns (by normal citizens) was required to ensure our nation remained free and secure.  I am not against supposed rights, I am saying there needs to be limits.

I am sure everyone that has a gun has gone through all of that extensive training on how to use a gun.  They are trained to have a perfect shot, be expert negotiators, trained in matters to stop those on a shooting rampage, and are suppose to replace the police and military?  :confused1: :BangHead:

You are eligible for a militia? I believe based on the definition of militia, the national guard would serve as this role, not some random person with a gun (though anyone could serve in that role if it came down to it).  You like your guns so much, feel free to help us all out by stopping oppression overseas.

Quote
Wolves like Cho Seung-Hui prey on sheep, people who choose to believe that a school is a sanctuary of learning where nothing bad ever happens.  Personally, I would rather carry a gun, so when the wolf comes for me at least I can have a shot at stopping him.

Or is it the wolves that bring the guns to schools?  I never said nothing bad happens; it is much worse in other places then school areas, why dont you do a patrol for us up and down the streets? 

Because you have a gun in a classroom means that you are going to be able to stop someone that is shooting people on the other side of campus? Can we say Police?

Quote
Changing times?  Give me a day when no one is murdered or threatened by another, and then the guns can be left at home.

I believe a large portion of killing going on in the world is done by those with guns.  We train police to protect people, not citizens wielding guns.

Quote

Why don't we just amend out the First Amendment- or hell let's just throw all 10 under revision since we really are in "different" times.

If you want to do either of those you will need to talk to bush. 

You argument is flawed and makes little sense.  I stated before that the second amendment was meant to protect the nation right after we became free, when there was a possible threat that the citizens of the nation.

Be sure to read the post below :)


Quote
The First ten amendments are not to be trifled with. 


Of course the others are not important.  I am sure the population that is not white males would love to argue with you on this one.


N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2007, 11:12:20 AM »
Quote
My Constitutional Right to Own a SAM

As a child, I remember being told that each of us, somewhere in the world, had a double. Later came the concept that the double, rather than being our exact equivalent, might be a distorted image of ourselves, like the "evil twin brother" of popular fiction. One can learn something about oneself by looking in a distorted mirror; it forces your thoughts out of their usual contexts, breaks complacency and self-satisfaction, and may allow insights to enter through the cracks.

Surely the National Rifle Association, in that sense, is the distorted double of the American Civil Liberties Union. How do civil libertarians feel when they hear their own dialog and principles--the absolutism of Constitutional rights, the fear of the slippery slope--echoed back to them in defense of the right to bear arms?

The ACLU must ferociously oppose the slightest insult to the right of free speech--no matter how marginal, weird, pornographic, violent or sick the speech--because "if we don't fight them on the beaches, we will have to fight them in the cities." The NRA, of course, is a past master at fighting on the beaches-- its opinion, which so closely resembles the absolutism of the ACLU, is that a restriction on cop killer bullets, or plastic guns undetectable by airport security, today, implies that all guns of every description will be taken away tomorrow.

What were the founders thinking about when they drafted the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the constitution? To different people, different sections of the Bill of Rights may sing, while others remain silent. To the NRA, the right to bear arms is thrilling, while there are probably NRA members to whom the right of free speech seems puzzling or irrelevant. For others of us, the right of free speech in the first amendment is electrifying, while the right to bear arms has all the intensity and relevance of a "right to import trivets" or a "right to churn butter".

The full text of the Constitutional language is:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first words, about the necessity of a militia, are often omitted. When considered, they are ambiguous. Proponents of gun control argue that the founders intended the Second Amendment only to protect the states against the federal government, or to draw the states into the new Union by reassuring them that they would remain somewhat independent, continuing to have the right to organize their own militias.

The Constitution, though drafted by extraordinary men, is a living and flawed document. While parts of it continue to generate electricity, others have diminished in importance or possibly even become irrelevant. (It is, however, dangerous to allow too quickly for the irrelevance of any part of the Constitution; it puts us on another slippery slope. Just imagine the impact of a statement at the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism that "The First Amendment right of free speech has no bearing on our current circumstances.")

If the intent of the founders, translated into current day terms, was to guarantee the states the right to organize National Guard divisions, such a right is not in question anywhere today. In fact, few (except for NRA members) would be likely to argue that a law prohibiting the National Guard (though unconstitutional) would wreak any great havoc, except symbolically.

In the context of the time--the late eighteenth century-- a guarantee to the states of the right to bear arms should certainly have implied the right to resist an oppressive federal government and therefore (by use of those very arms, if necessary) to secede from the Union. If this is what the Constitution intended, this right, of course, passed out of existence as part of our social compact at the time of the Civil War.

In the NRA's opinion, was the Civil War an unconstitutional exercise of power by an oppressive federal government? If so, the NRA could comfortably say, "Yes, something unconstitutional happened, but the Constitution survives." This would then be like the ACLU, speaking of the Japanese internment camps or the Jim Crow laws. But if you believe that the Union was right to defend itself and to force unhappy members to keep their membership, it is hard to see that the right to bear arms, postulated as a state's right, survived the ordeal.

Of course, the NRA does not view the Second Amendment as creating a state's right; the militia referred to was always intended to be, or has transmuted into, the body of all citizens taking arms individually against an oppressive federal government. If this is true, it is hard to imagine the founders deliberately drafting a document containing the seeds of the Union's destruction by its own citizens. Any lawyer knows that a contract terminable at will by either party without consequences, where neither has given anything up to sign it, fails for lack of consideration. Why would anyone draft a social contract that guaranteed the right to bear arms against the very union created by the contract? Again, what were the founders thinking?

A right to bear arms against one's own government would be a very peculiar right indeed. What would such a right mean in practice? Could a cop killer plead the Second Amendment in extenuation, if his act was political? Does the NRA believe that David Koresh and his followers had a constitutional right to fire on federal agents because they were behaving heavy handedly or oppressively? And if the answer to this is yes, then: WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION?

Stop and think about this point for a moment. The right to bear arms in itself would be meaningless if it did not imply the right to fire them. This would be tantamount to saying that the First Amendment right of free speech meant only the right to have organs of speech, not to use them. And if the right to bear arms was really granted to the states or to individual citizens as a means of self-protection against oppressive government, it logically follows that the Second Amendment protects the right not simply to fire guns at targets or at deer, but at oppressive federal agents. Such a right of killing would be strange, unique and surprising for the founders to have wished to include in the Constitution.

And very impractical. Some killings are, of course, considered legal and justified as self-defense. But society, under the framework of the Constitution, has appointed its judges, who are government officials, to determine when a killing is self defense and when it is murder. Do the Second Amendment absolutists recognize the government's jurisdiction to determine when the shooting of a government agent is justified? Because, if they do not, they necessarily set the shooter himself up as judge and jury--something the founders and the Constitution obviously did not intend, because the Constitution also deprives individuals of the right to make life and death decisions about their peers without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the legal system.

It is possible that the right to bear arms was the least well thought out section of the Constitution, and that the drafters would be horrified if they could see the gun violence in our cities today and then hear the sanctimonious use of the Second Amendment to sanction the means of killing. The Constitution has grown and changed to adapt to many social transformations; when it was written, black people were still slaves in this country and half the white population did not have the right to vote. It may be possible to ban guns entirely, without doing any fundamental violence to the Constitution. The danger here is again, who gets to make the determination? To see the problem, just imagine that there are other people, with equal conviction and honesty, who could make the same statement about the right of free speech: that current conditions do not permit it, that if the founders saw the uses being made of speech, they would be horrified, etc.

There is a sense among judges and scholars, the "conservative" in the pure, not the political sense of the word, that the Constitution ought not to be amended too easily. For every noble amendment, such as the one confirming the freedom of the slaves, there are silly or trivial ones such as Prohibition. Today, with calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, or the right to school prayer, one can only be glad that it is hard in general to amend the Constitution, or else it would become a tattered patchwork and cease to have much to do with its original beauty and intent.

Where this leads us is that the Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if we personally believe it to be misguided, must be treated with respect, like any other part of the Constitution. It is a force in American life, and it means something which cannot simply be disregarded or explained away. But like the First Amendment right of free speech, it is not absolute. Certain forms of speech are (and always have been recognized to be) prohibited (eg, yelling fire falsely in a crowded theater) or subject to strict regulation (pornography). Only a demagogue would argue that the right to bear arms is more absolute than the right of speech.

For example, it is well established that the First Amendment does not prohibit some government regulation pertaining to protected speech, for example, the necessity to obtain a permit before handing out leaflets in a park. Such a law is only unconstitutional if it singles out particular groups or forms of speech, for example, if only Communists had to obtain permits, or if permits were freely issued to everyone but Communists.

If government can regulate by permit the right to hand out a leaflet, drive a car, catch a fish, perform dentistry or fly a plane, it certainly should be able to regulate the right to own a gun, as long as there is no discrimination against speech or against particular groups in the way such a program is administered. Guns are dangerous instrumentalities and reasonable regulations imposing waiting periods, safety classes or other such requirements should certainly stand up. In fact, no court has ever held that the Second Amendment granted an absolute right to bear arms free of any regulation.

It is doubtful that the founders, in drafting the Second Amendment, intended it to permit the average citizen to place a loaded cannon in his front yard pointed at his neighbor's house. Since that time, many new instrumentalities have been invented and sold as "arms". Even if we restrict ourselves to those that can be carried by a single human being, we must still acknowledge that flamethrowers are arms; if we require (is this what the Constitution intended?) that such an "arm" fire a projectile, then bazookas, grenade launchers, and even SAM missiles are included. Does the NRA argue that we have a Second Amendment right to bear such arms?

If the NRA acknowledges that a line may be drawn somewhere, for example, that a private citizen should not have the right to own a SAM, then it becomes simply a question of where to draw the line. Understanding that the NRA, like the ACLU, is fighting on the beaches rather than on its own doorstep to avoid insults to its most dearly-held beliefs, there is nothing repugnant or unconstitutional in drawing the line to exclude semiautomatic weapons along with SAM's.
From: http://www.spectacle.org/295/guns.html
N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2007, 11:30:19 AM »
Are you serious?  Because I am sure it was on the minds of those that wrote the constitution (and amendments) that they would need to some how predict the future.  The constitution was written shortly after we declared our independence from another nation, a time when we needed people with arms to protect against oppressors.  The militia was in place to protect against aggression, if I am not mistaken we have a military for that purpose.  The constitution was written in a time where the rights to carry guns (by normal citizens) was required to ensure our nation remained free and secure.  I am not against supposed rights, I am saying there needs to be limits.

The Second Amendment is in place to protect the citizens from any oppressive power that would infringe upon their rights, such as those delineated in the Bill of Rights, and this includes our own government..  I guess those "hacks" that created this country could not see very far ahead since the constitution and the Bill of Rights is merely important in only the first few years of the Republic.

The Bill of Rights is Not Negotiable.  If you feel otherwise I detest your existence.

Quote
I am sure everyone that has a gun has gone through all of that extensive training on how to use a gun.  They are trained to have a perfect shot, be expert negotiators, trained in matters to stop those on a shooting rampage, and are suppose to replace the police and military?  :confused1: :BangHead:

Nowhere does it specify in the Constitution that any gun safety or proficiency must be had to own and hold a firearm.  It dictates against this type of law.

Quote
You are eligible for a militia? I believe based on the definition of militia, the national guard would serve as this role, not some random person with a gun (though anyone could serve in that role if it came down to it).  You like your guns so much, feel free to help us all out by stopping oppression overseas.

What, are you saying that once again these "hacks" merely put in that comma as a "pause" for the reader to breathe?  Numerous Supreme Court cases alone have decided that the Second Amendment assigns the individual the right to own and have firearms.  If you had any knowlege whatsoever regarding our founders and their beliefs (and the reasons behind their beliefs) you would have never uttered such tripe.

Quote
If you want to do either of those you will need to talk to bush. 
Nice Red Herring - learn to stay on topic.

Quote
You argument is flawed and makes little sense.  I stated before that the second amendment was meant to protect the nation right after we became free, when there was a possible threat that the citizens of the nation.

You lack proper understanding - in fact -  any understanding of the Constitution.  Go back to grade school.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2007, 11:33:38 AM by JakeJZG »
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2007, 11:54:56 AM »
The funny part is that you couldn’t refute many of the facts I provided

Quote

The Second Amendment is in place to protect the citizens from any oppressive power that would infringe upon their rights, such as those delineated in the Bill of Rights, and this includes our own government..  I guess those "hacks" that created this country could not see very far ahead since the constitution and the Bill of Rights is merely important in only the first few years of the Republic.

Attempting to take words out of context to make me mad will not work.

I did not say that.  I have simply been saying that times change, there is a reason they were amendments to the constitution, they saw a need for change.  Again see that quoted article above.

Quote
If you feel otherwise I detest your existence.

What a sad statement, I truly feel sorry for you.  Was our nation not founded on the principles that people can argue for what they feel is right?


Quote
Nowhere does it specify in the Constitution that any gun safety or proficiency must be had to own and hold a firearm.  It dictates against this type of law.
I never said it did.  I was refuting the claim that guns make everything safer for everyone.

Quote
What, are you saying that once again these "hacks" merely put in that comma as a "pause" for the reader to breathe?  Numerous Supreme Court cases alone have decided that the Second Amendment assigns the individual the right to own and have firearms.  If you had any knowlege whatsoever regarding our founders and their beliefs (and the reasons behind their beliefs) you would have never uttered such tripe.
Did you even read what I typed?  Can you cite the supreme court cases?

Were you there and did you ask the founder fathers what they thought, I dont think so.  So how can you claim that you know what they thought.  What is written and what they thought can be different.  Group think?

Quote
Nice Red Herring - learn to stay on topic. 

It is on topic, and I forgot that you ran this message board.

Quote
Quote
You argument is flawed and makes little sense.  I stated before that the second amendment was meant to protect the nation right after we became free, when there was a possible threat that the citizens of the nation.

You lack proper understanding - in fact -  any understanding of the Constitution.  Go back to grade school.

Are you serious?  Well I am glad that I have you - the expert- to answer it all for me and tell me how wrong I am.  Thanks
N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2007, 12:44:02 PM »
The Second Amendment is as antiquated as the First - and they will both go if either is taken away.

While "Amendments" they are not up for review, as the very basis of our republic lies in those first 10.  They are the only Amendments not up for review.

Supreme Court Cases: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

I have read a rather extensive allotment of material deriving from the enlightenment as well as the American Rebellion/Revolution before, during, and after.  Without knowledge of much of the material surrounding these areas one cannot well appreciate the significance or meaning in the Constitution as much as without. 

I am merely stating that you are plainly wrong if you think:
-The first ten Amendments are meant to be redacted in any form
-The Second Amendment does not apply to the individual
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2007, 03:19:27 PM »
I'm not going to get into this right now, but I'd like to comment on a few things:

I think it's the responsibility of the individual to be "well regulated."  This means, among other things, being ready for the need to use those arms you bear for the purpose of defending yourself and your city/state/country, but not using them unless they are necessary.  It is this idea where I disagree with people--I don't think the Second Amendment gives you free reign to shoot whom you will, or be reckless with your weapons in public.  It gives you the right to bear arms, but it also gives you the responsibility to be "well-regulated" (hyphen added for my grammatical sanity).  It is the latter that people seem to have a problem with.

This topic has been brought up on another semi-local message board, where one person in particular seems to think that it's their right to own a handgun so they can stop hold-ups at convenience stores.  While I believe that people doing what needs to be done in order to survive or to save lives, I disagree that most people are cool enough in such a situation to think and act clearly.  I don't believe that this type of situation is what the Second Amendment was referring to.

We, as a Democratic society, have put in place certain agencies to protect us from the harms of our own society.  In most cases, these agencies (police forces, the national guard) are the best-trained to handle internal situations in order to protect the greatest number of people.  Most of the time this is all that is needed, however, should the time arise again when negotiations will cease to ease the problems between the people and the government, the "well-regulated militia" will have to perform their duty, just as the militias of the pre-United States did during the Revolutionary War.

This is not the way I ever hope it has to be, but I think that the writers of the Constitution (and of this Amendment of 1791) were perfectly correct to include this loophole.  They knew what they had just recently gone through, and they knew that the time may come in the future when, through the slow erosion of the Liberty of the American people, another revolution woudl have to occur in order to protect those Democratic ideals that they held dear.  The writer of this last article quoted fails to realize that the Founding Fathers weren't interested in protecting the new nation they had created--they were intent on preserving a way of thought and a way of life, regardless of what followers of their beliefs decided to call their nation.



That wasn't as brief as I had wanted it to be, but I think it actually covered what I wanted to say.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #17 on: October 15, 2007, 09:08:40 PM »
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2007, 10:43:07 AM »
Quote
The New York Times

December 16, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Clause and Effect
By ADAM FREEDMAN

LAST month, the Supreme Court agreed to consider District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington’s strict gun ordinance as a violation of the Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.”

This will be the first time in nearly 70 years that the court has considered the Second Amendment. The outcome of the case is difficult to handicap, mainly because so little is known about the justices’ views on the lethal device at the center of the controversy: the comma. That’s right, the “small crooked point,” as Richard Mulcaster described this punctuation upstart in 1582. The official version of the Second Amendment has three of the little blighters:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The decision invalidating the district’s gun ban, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, cites the second comma (the one after “state”) as proof that the Second Amendment does not merely protect the “collective” right of states to maintain their militias, but endows each citizen with an “individual” right to carry a gun, regardless of membership in the local militia.

How does a mere comma do that? According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one “prefatory” and the other “operative.” On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about “the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.”

The circuit court’s opinion is only the latest volley in a long-simmering comma war. In a 2001 Fifth Circuit case, a group of anti-gun academics submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief arguing that the “unusual” commas of the Second Amendment support the collective rights interpretation. According to these amici, the founders’ use of commas reveals that what they really meant to say was “a well-regulated militia ... shall not be infringed.”

Now that the issue is heading to the Supreme Court, the pro-gun American Civil Rights Union is firing back with its own punctuation-packing brief. Nelson Lund, a professor of law at George Mason University, argues that everything before the second comma is an “absolute phrase” and, therefore, does not modify anything in the main clause. Professor Lund states that the Second Amendment “has exactly the same meaning that it would have if the preamble had been omitted.”

Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas. In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific. Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking. For centuries, punctuation was as chaotic as individual speech patterns.

The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.

Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version.

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

Advocates of both gun rights and gun control are making a tactical mistake by focusing on the commas of the Second Amendment. After all, couldn’t one just as easily obsess about the founders’ odd use of capitalization? Perhaps the next amicus brief will find the true intent of the amendment by pointing out that “militia” and “state” are capitalized in the original, whereas “people” is not.

Adam Freedman, the author of “The Party of the First Part: The Curious World of Legalese,” writes the Legal Lingo column for New York Law Journal Magazine.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?em&ex=1198040400&en=b932c6e9c278f0f4&ei=5087%0A
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 10:43:44 AM by mburtonk »
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2008, 11:34:56 PM »
Quote
Student group pushes for right to carry concealed weapons on campus
By Kathy Boccella
Inquirer Staff Writer


Along with books, laptop and cell phone, there is something else that Jeremy Clark thinks is essential to bring to class: his gun.

The Villanova University law student said the sickening spate of campus shootings, from Virginia Tech to Northern Illinois University, left him feeling vulnerable without his Glock 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

"If I'm in a classroom where a shooting is taking place, I'd like a chance to be able to defend myself," said the 29-year-old Army veteran from Bethlehem, Pa., who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Villanova, like nearly all colleges and universities nationwide, bans firearms on campus. A new group, called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), would like to change that, arguing that concealed-carry permit holders should be able to bring weapons to school to defend themselves and their classmates against a deranged killer.

The group, which sprang up after the Virginia Tech massacre, claims to have 16,000 members at 500 campuses nationwide, including Pennsylvania State and West Chester Universities, with every incident drawing in more frightened students, faculty and parents. With a click of a Facebook account, anyone can sign up.

"We got more than 1,000 new members after the [NIU] shooting," said Stephen Feltoon, a national director of SCCC and a recent Miami University graduate.

In April, supporters plan to wear empty holsters to class during a day of protest.

Clark said the Illinois shooting - in which a former student killed six and wounded 15 in a classroom on Feb. 14 - made him realize that the safety measures instituted by schools after the Virgina Tech massacre weren't working.

"There's only so much they can do," said Clark, who joined SCCC after that incident. "If I'm licensed to carry a gun in this state, why can't I carry it here?"

Guns laws vary greatly from state to state, with only one state, Utah, permitting concealed-carry on campus. New Jersey forbids guns at all schools while Pennsylvania's ban is limited to elementary and secondary schools.

Restricting firearms at colleges doesn't make them safer, advocates say. In fact, they add, criminals will likely target schools because they know they are gun-free zones.

"It's the same reason we wear seat belts - we just don't know when something is going to happen," said Ken Stanton, a 30-year-old graduate student at Virginia Tech, where a gunman slaughtered 33 people in April 2007.

Colleges don't see it that way.

"At first blush, this might appear to some to be a good idea, but I think most of us in the field would agree it is not," said David Tedjeske, director of public safety at Villanova, which has had two recent gun incidents. In November, someone fired several shots in the air after a late-night altercation outside the student center, and last year a gunman shot at police just off college grounds, triggering a massive manhunt and campus lockdown.

The idea of loaded guns in beer-soaked frat houses isn't as farfetched as it seems. At least 13 states are considering some form of legislation allowing concealed-carry on campus, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures.

The University of Utah's gun ban was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2006, though it is fighting to reinstate it in the federal courts. But the state legislature is considering a bill that would allow weapons to be carried openly at public universities.

"The feedback we've received from faculty and students is that the last thing they want is to have someone openly carrying a gun in a classroom or through the halls or on campus," said university spokeswoman Coralie Alder.

Critics say there are many reasons why guns and colleges don't mix.

"The more guns you put on campus, the more likely they are going to be misused," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Trained police officers only hit their targets 20 percent of the time in emergency situations, he said. Not only is it unlikely that a student or teacher would be able to save the day, police responding to the scene could not tell the good guys from the bad guys.

There's also a danger of guns getting lost, stolen or misused.

"Someone gets drunk, upset, angry with a girlfriend - and all of a sudden there's a gun in the mix, and you've got more problems than you're solving," he said.

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement does not endorse concealed-carry on campus, noting the potential for accidents or misuse.

"I would dispute anyone who says there's evidence to suggest that having students carrying guns on campus make our campuses safer," said Steven J. Healy, police chief and public safety director at Princeton University and past president of the group.

In fact, research shows that making it easier to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public does not reduce violent crime, said Jon Vernick, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. And guns in the home increase the risk of suicide or homicide, he said.

The SCCC maintains that gun owners in general are law-abiding and careful with their weapons. Most partying goes on off-campus where guns are already permitted.

"In all my years interacting with students who are legal gun owners, never once has a firearm been brought out inappropriately," said Matthew Cross, 24, a concealed-carry advocate at West Chester University, where he is a graduate history student.

Rachel Blumenfeld, 23, of Wilmington, a law student at Villanova, got a .380 semiautomatic handgun last year after being stalked by an abusive boyfriend. She would like to bring it school because he has threatened to follow her there, she said.

A fellow law student, Peter Caltagirone, 25, said he used to support gun control, but now feels that allowing guns on campus will deter attacks.

"In light of the changing nature of the world," he said, "I think it's a necessary protective measure."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/education/20080301_After_shootings__national_student_group_pushes_for_right_to_carry_concealed_weapons_on_campus_.html

So more students with guns are going to help out the problem?
CampusDakota.com

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2008, 09:58:54 AM »
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2008, 03:16:07 PM »
That video proves nothing. They take a few cases and overgeneralize them.

I am not suggesting that we need to take all guns away, I am just saying simply allowing guns on campus will not allow you to say that it is safer.
CampusDakota.com

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2008, 04:53:29 PM »
Backed up by what evidence? 
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline ajekt

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: 32
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2008, 04:56:39 PM »
Backed up by what evidence? 

I dont know about him, but I would like some actual facts.  Your video doesnt prove anything in my mind.
N-D-S-U ... Goooooo Bison!

Offline zman

  • NDSU
  • *
  • Posts: 410
  • Karma: 41
  • Gender: Male
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2008, 04:58:10 PM »
Oh fun a gun argement!

I am thinking the poll question is a bit bias: "What do you think about responsible Concealed Carry Permit holders carrying concealed weapons at school." 

But I dont care either way, I just dont want to get shot on campus.

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2008, 05:44:03 PM »
Quote
State universities to arm police with assault rifles

Toby Phillips
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 5, 2008 12:00 AM
Police departments at Arizona's three universities plan to arm their officers with military-style assault rifles within the next year, officials said Tuesday.

The new rifles would give campus police officers long-range shooting capabilities, allowing them to hit targets at the end of long hallways or atop tall buildings, officials said.

Arizona State University will be the first of the three schools to use the weapons. Officers there will be trained to use the rifles in the next few months, said ASU police spokesman Cmdr. Jim Hardina.

   


Officers will undergo 40 hours of training before using the weapons.

"We don't want to just throw rifles out there," Hardina said.

Eight officers at the University of Arizona will get similar training before a rifle program launches there in four to five months, officials said. Northern Arizona University officials said a rifle program was in the works, although a specific start date was not immediately available.

ASU has bought four of the new rifles at $700 each, and is looking to find money to purchase four more. One challenge the department is facing: finding ammunition for the rifles. Increased military operations mean that the police department and the armed forces were competing for the same ammo, Hardina said.

Assault rifles are useful in "active shooter" situations in which there may not be time to wait for a SWAT team to arrive on campus, officials said.

They added that the plan has been in the works for a couple of years and is not related to recent shootings on college campuses, including last year's massacre of 32 students at Virginia Tech by a student with a history of mental illness.

Pistols that campus officers currently use aren't ideal for long shots, said Sgt. Eugene Mejia, UA Police Department spokesman.

"Beyond 50 feet, you lose a lot of accuracy," Mejia said. "You can take a longer, more accurate shot (with the rifles)."

ASU officers will store the new guns in their patrol cars while on duty, taking them out only when a situation warrants their use, Hardina said.

Jan Kelly, an ASU faculty member, said she understands why officers have a need for weapons with increased capabilities. She said she feels comfortable with campus officers' access to the rifles.

"I don't think the police are going to target students," Kelly said. "If they (the guns) aren't visible, most won't really know about them.

"Hopefully we'll never know about them."
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/0305asuguns0305.html#
CampusDakota.com

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2008, 06:11:38 PM »


I don’t know about him, but I would like some actual facts.  Your video doesnt prove anything in my mind.

Really?  So contradict it with some facts.  Show me some information about how when Utah allowed students to carry weapons on campus they saw a huge increase in gun violence on campus.  Show me some information about how a person with a conceal carry permit is NOT 5 times less likely to commit a crime than a regular non violent American.  Find information that doesn't show that you can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline Meest

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 235
  • Karma: 8
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2008, 08:20:53 AM »
Everyone has an opinion, much like we all have assholes too.

Debates like this never change anyones view. just re-enforce their own in their head.

There are two sides to an issue that's up for debate, and like all debates that I know of. No one is ever a winner.

Stating facts is great. If I had my opinion I wouldn't have an issue with someone carrying a gun anyway... Not like its stoped people from shooting up campus' yet. We're all going to die at some time, and put our lives on the line every day. I would much rather be able to do what I want, if I would ever want to do it, than have to jump around red tape that was put up, because someone didn't "Think it would have a point"

Here's a question. Why create laws to block people from doing something when the one's that cause the issue are the minority? That even goes down to basic issue's like the "NO SKATEBOARDS" sign up at the ralph.... A few bad apples spoil the whole basket, why not just pick those bad one's out? Its easier to dump them all out, then to do through and find the 2 or 3 bad one's. Its an act of laziness.

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2008, 10:05:53 AM »
If we're going to get into becoming a self-governing society, I'm with you there.  I would much rather trust people to carry guns and not let them be used in a potentially dangerous situation (such as drunk kids in a dorm room), or to not be asses to people when they are skateboarding (I think signs like that are idiotic) than have to make more and more rules for people to follow.  I just don't think more rules are the answer, but people today just seem to be lazy and afraid of getting their hands dirty for some reason.

If we were a responsible society, I think this would work out.  I'm not saying that gun owners in particular are not responsible, I think "society at large" is.  I think there should be gun education from day one in schools, because education is the only way that people are going to understand that not everyone with a gun is a raving lunatic AND how to act around a gun and what to do in the situation occurs (hopefully never again) when someone gets ahold of a gun and has the potential to harm someone else (be it on purpose or by accident).

It comes down to us being responsible as a whole, not us asking for more "protection" from the government.  I probably said it earlier in this thread, but what bothers me about having guns on campus is not the gun owners, it's the people who live with or near the gun owners who have only ever fired a weapon in a video game.  All I'm saying is that accidents happen, no matter how careful we are, especially where a lot of alcohol is consumed.  I think that there would be fewer accidents if firearm safety education were the rule rather than the exception (yes, I know we're in ND, but I'm thinking on a nationwide scale).
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2008, 01:30:52 PM »
Good post.

I did want to comment on this part.
All I'm saying is that accidents happen, no matter how careful we are, especially where a lot of alcohol is consumed.  I think that there would be fewer accidents if firearm safety education were the rule rather than the exception (yes, I know we're in ND, but I'm thinking on a nationwide scale).

Currently there are guns allowed in campus apartments, and lets not pretend that frat houses are gun free.  Currently there are no problems.  I just do not see it getting worse.  The idea of concealed carry is to be concealed.  My friends don't even know I own a gun.  I think if people like pmp6nl and ajekt obtained a hand gun, they may feel different about the situation.  I have been on both sides, I doubt they have.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 01:31:40 PM by Red »
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2008, 03:23:54 PM »
You make an absolutely clear point with that.  I guess I can't just assume that the dorms are gun free either.  In this case (since we're talking about UND), I think I'm on your side when it comes to not fixing what's not broken.  What do the powers that be say when this argument is used?

JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2008, 04:06:13 PM »
Red why are you generalizing and assuming I dont have a gun and I feel this way or that way about it?  Just because I posted some articles and said that a video on Youtube did not convince me of anything does not mean I am against gun ownership or anything.

Quote
I think if people like pmp6nl and ajekt
Like what?  How are we so different?

I could say if people like Red werent so "I have to have a gun because its my right" then they might feel different about the situation.

Thats just ridiculous to assume something like that based on a few posts... and for your information you are way off on how I feel about the subject.

I have to leave for a meeting, but I will provide a much more detailed response later.

CampusDakota.com

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2008, 01:24:47 AM »
Just remember that this topic is about concealed carry on campus.  The two of you have made it clear that you do not support it.  I look forward to your explanation.   
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2008, 01:27:53 PM »
First of all this topic has included many points about guns,  not just guns on campus.  I still do not see how you are able to claim I made my stance clear that I don’t support guns on campus or whatever you are claiming?

Let me ask you a few questions.  Do you want to allow guns on campus because you say its your right, because it could help you stop a madman on campus, or both?

The question about your rights has been discussed above.  Just out of curiosity, do you propose that there should be no limits to where guns are allowed?  Are you suggesting that allowing students to have guns on campus will reduce the number of deaths on campus as the result of guns or other weapons?  Do you feel you are vulnerable to attack since you are not allowed to carry your gun on campus?  Have you ever heard of anyone getting accidentally shot?  How much gun training have you had?  How about training relating to mental disorders, negotiation, and tracking, among others?  Do you think the issue is as simple as someone bringing a gun to campus and shooting people, or do you think there are many underlying issues? 

Again, before you make claims I am not the one that is saying ban all guns.  I am saying if guns are allowed then something different needs to be done.  Of course this is an opinion I am presenting.  As was said above, arguments like this don’t often end up convincing one person one way or another.

I await your response so I can gather a better idea as to what exactly you want.
CampusDakota.com

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2008, 02:39:58 AM »
Unless one wishes to ban CCW universally, one cannot logically or rationally disagree with the extension of CCW onto college campuses.
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2008, 11:23:35 AM »
Unless one wishes to ban CCW universally, one cannot logically or rationally disagree with the extension of CCW onto college campuses.

Why don't we allow weapons into courthouses?  Why don't we allow them on airplanes?  Why do we have these exceptions, but not one involving college campuses?

Just curious.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Red

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: 5
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2008, 08:19:33 AM »
In an airplane they do their very best to make sure that Nobody has a gun, and access to an aircraft by an undesirable, especially during flight, is nearly impossible.  If everyone was screened to come to class like they were to get on an airplane then there may be a case against concealed carry. 
100 percent of everything is attitude

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2008, 01:14:08 PM »
If you are to suggest that, I would suggest just enslaving the entire populous against guns.  Why not?  I don't mean to throw a red herring or anything, I just think that perhaps disarming the law abiding citizens would be beneficial if you wanted to break the law and start shooting.

You know, since making it illegal to have a gun doesn't stop those willing to break the law.

Those that follow the law tend not to abuse guns or be the problem.

Also - if the person is deemed stable enough to carry a concealed firearm in public society, why not on college campuses?

It wouldn't cause disruptions:  It does not at the schools it's already allowed, and no one would know about them - since they are concealed.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2008, 01:15:32 PM by JakeJZG »
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2008, 06:01:17 PM »
I just read about guns on campuses in SD here.

Interesting.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2008, 03:08:50 PM »
http://undcr.com/?p=201

No references, oddly.
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2008, 10:35:35 PM »
http://undcr.com/?p=201

No references, oddly.

Who uses references in the news? :P
CampusDakota.com

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #41 on: May 11, 2008, 09:39:54 PM »
http://undcr.com/?p=201

No references, oddly.

Who uses references in the news? :P

The UND College Republican Blog is NOT a news service. 

When I was manager of that website I did my best to post all sources available in good form.

For this decision I am not aware of any published source for the ban, but any contact to the Campus Police would give you your verification.

Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2008, 11:24:14 AM »
news as in a report of recent events....

CampusDakota.com

Offline JakeJZG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: 17
  • SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
    • tl;dr
Re: Those evil damn guns on campus
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2008, 05:42:05 PM »
Sure!  :)
Use Windows?  Want to know a better way?
Come join the East Dakota Linux Users Group!
http://talk.campusdakota.com/index.php?board=111.0
http://www.tldr.de/~edlug/

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is an apple, it starts with an r?:
What is 5 plus 5?:
Which Dakota has the city of Fargo:

realistic