|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 1 user and 34 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by security_six on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 9:36pm.
Okay, I really want to try this again, only without all the arguing that pretty much blew the first attempt out of the water. I contributed a lot to that, so I am pointing no blame at anyone. Here is an introduction to SB 6860
This bill, which would end discrimination against lawfully armed college students and facilty by allowing any concealed weapons permit holder to carry a handgun at an institution of higher education. I started this again because I have chatted with the activist who wrote this bill, Kevin Schmadeka and because the public hearing for this bill will be Thursday. Rick made an effort to demonstrate he feels this is ethically unacceptable in a place of learning, and I made an effort to show that this is a violation of a person's right to bear arms, equal opportunity protection under the law, and in the case of TESC's social contract seems to fly in the face of the statement that students share the same civil rights as other members of society. That said, I would also like to emphasize that laws did not stop any bullets at Virginia Tech, nor have they stopped any bullets in other high profile shootings. What has stopped two, one at a mall in Salt Lake City and another at a Colorado Church have been people with a gun willing to fight back. In Colorado, a volunteer parishoneer with training fought back and stopped the attack. In Utah, an off duty cop with only six rounds at his disposal held down the attacker in an amazing show of skill and bravery. Better mental health care would also help prevent this attrocities. However in every case the law abiding citizen has been hampered or limited by laws which are supposed to protect them. The threatened "blood in the streets" which anti gunners have cried every time legislation increasing concealed carry or other carry laws has yet to happen. In fact many well documented studies have shown otherwise. I have posted to several of these before. So I would ask, from a legal standpoint, and from the standpoint of one who wishes to legally arm themselves for whatever reason, why deny someone an opportunity to protect themselves or others? We have already been tragically shown what happens when nobody can fight back. Enough of victim rich zones. I would also point your attention to Students for Concealed Carry Please remember that in this state the right to bear arms is in fact a well protected civil right. What other civil liberties shall we deny students? Once you start with one, you can start taking others.
| |
good point
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:23am.Interesting point S6-
BTW, the other "6860" post with 124 comments "locks-up" OlyBlog when I click on it--
Where are you hoping this dialog goes?
To be honest, most folks are unaware who has a weapon in any given situation, and a positive option might be to teach folks trade-craft that gives them awareness & information--
--something to combat the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" that permeates our daily lives.
As a private property owner of, say, a mall
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:19am.I sure wouldn't, but...
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:34am....it sounds like the the law may not support that distinction--
For me that raises the question, "do personal property rights "come before" the "right to bear arms"?
--and I thought the "right to bear arms" was all about citizens arming themselves vs. "big gov", and not necessarily supporting the idea that citizens arms themselves vs. other citizens--
If I worried about getting shot or assaulted, and I wanted to be "safe", I'd walk around in a multi-layered plate-mail suit of Kevlar...
...but since I'm OK with the level of security I find in my environment, I have decided not to wear body armor and/or tote around weaponry.
(As an aside, I don't find weapons offensive (per se), but I do dislike thugs and folks that use weapons for aggression/dominance.)
The state's right to bear arms
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:51am.I don't understand Gug...
Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 11:46am.One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
Yes.
Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:23pm.One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
Ah,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:28pm.>nice<
Submitted by chad360 on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 8:56am.There is a
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 8:40pm.Many places like malls, though private property by virtue of being "public places" have different property rights than say your house.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
This bill is not going to get out of committee.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 11:18am."In fact many well documented studies have shown otherwise"
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 11:50am.Nope!!! Unless you can't distiguish between "well documented" and "well done." The cold fusion experiments were "well documented" but not very well done. (That's just an example, cold fusion conspiracy fans should start another thread.)
"...why deny someone an opportunity to protect themselves or others?"
Those are just some ideas.
Interesting...
Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:03pm.1. Emprical evidence that bad people who posess guns pose a substancial public health risk:
2. Institutional security is almost never up to the task of providing much more than seemingly emotional security. Often these security agents are not even armed.
3. Arms on campus if concealed would make no difference to, interfere with, or have any affect on educational goals.
4. In and of it self we should not react 'sheepishly' to a incident which happens to be high profile. We should how ever look at the long list of school or 'public' mall type incidents and understand them in an overall context. We should not sheepishly suspend the Second Amendment to the Constitution because guns give us the 'whillys'.
5. Respect for academic freedom should not include a literal demonstration of how the liberal left is able to suspend constitutional right when they don't like them.
6. An armed student body, with the caveat that they conceal their leagally carried firearm will go un-noticed by the student body in general, thus having no impact on a free and spirited exchange of ideas.
7. By demanding that public places such as schools, malls, and so forth be permitted to suspend the individuals right to excersize the Second Amendment, our socieity is doing exaclty what you claim you don't want to do, which is surrender to a culture of fear. It is just not the 'fear' that you refered to in your seventh point.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
Six was asking for reasons
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:11pm.Liberal leftists taking away the 2nd Ammendment on campuses
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 3:25pm.Meet the liberal leftists of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors (what we call Regents in our state) who oppose efforts to allow students and faculty to arm themselves on thier campus, including legislation similar to 6860.
Excluding four student, faculty, and staff representatives, here are the radicals and their pinko affiliations:
This bill doesn't suspend any rights.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:09pm.Until you can somehow prove that Columbine, or Virginia Tech., the mall shooting, etc., could have been somehow prevented (prevented being the key word), by having more guns present then my mind will not even begin to change.
The first thing that leaps to mind is....
Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:21pm.The woman who shot the gun man at the church in Colorado. How much unnecessary carnage did that shot prevent? Un armed security guards are not going to stop a guy like Kip Kinkel. You seem to think that guns are the problem. I don't know how I could disagree more. The problem is the people not the inanimate object.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
She was an ex-cop and a security guard
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:41pm.And if she wasn't?
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:47pm.To assumptions need to be reconciled
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:02pm.1. An unarmed campus is an unsafe campus;
2. People are carrying anyway.
If people are carrying anyway, then why aren't these heros intervening? Makes me wonder if the supposed 'benefits" of an officially sanctioned armed student body outweigh the concerns of the boards that govern our campuses. Absent any evidence of those benefits, I am inclined to let the universities run themselves and butt out.
How do we know unless we experiment?
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:06pm.People are carrying anyway...been there, done that, even at Evergreen *gasp*
Campuses are unsafe, whether armed or not, no place is truly "safe". If armed there is at least a, remote, possibility of stopping an armed attacker.
Why aren't the heroes intervening? Maybe it's a small enough number of folks that they just aren't in the right place, at the right time. You would be foolish to think that nobody ever carries on campus in this state though. Kind of like the national parks.
I'll wait for someone to reconcile the statements
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:18pm.I thought that made perfect sense
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:20pm.I'll try again Norm
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:29pm.1. People claim campuses would be safer if students were allowed to carry.
2. People are carrying anyway.
Well, then, how many times have times have we read stories about the hero student who stepped up to stop a V-Tech style killer? I'm waiting.
Let me be clear
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:33pm.1. There is a "possibility" of that, but no guarantee. I have not made that claim, but I will claim that armed students stand a better chance, against an armed attacker, than an unarmed student. We will not know unless we try.
2. People are carrying anyway. I know of several here locally, including myself. You are the statistic master, if there are a handful in one school, there are probably a handful in every school, right?
I have never heard that story, but we will never get an answer to your question unless
a. One of those students who is carrying ends up in the right place, at the right time, or
b. concealed carry is accepted in all campuses, which may up the numbers of armed students, which will increase the odds of the "right place, at the right time" that was mentioned above.
I give up
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:35pm.Good, just walk away
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:37pm.Yeah, me too.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:39pm.We should all hug Norm a lot next time we see him.
We can make a Norm sandwhich
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:43pm.You just made my day.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:44pm.What Norm said...
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 8:45pm.:-) If I am carrying my weapon I will shoot for people if I have to, and take the risk of taking a bullet at the same time... I think you will find a lot of people who carry guns feel this way.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Can you say "straw man" ? I knew you could.
Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:43am.I don't know of a single campus where it would be legal for anyone except a police officer to carry a fire arm legally. Do you know of any? If you do, can you tell me how many spree/serial killers have attacked innocent people on the campus?
"People are carrying anyway" Here is the thing, they are not carrying. Because it is currently against the law, and law abiding people who get a concealed carry permit and purchase a leagally owned fire arm obey the law. They are much more reluctant to put their expensive fire arm at risk of being seized, of losing their right to carry, and having a felony or serious misdemeanor on their record.
So you set up this sort of bogus argument, and then knocked it down, to what end? It doesn't make sense. Bad guys break the law. Good guys obey it even if the law is foolish and essentially unconstitutional. Good guys work within the system to change a bad law. Even if it takes a long time. But that is another matter.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
Be nice
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:46am.Quote of the day?
Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:57am.This could well be my quote of the day! " Either schools are gun-free zones that attract killers, or they are places where people are carrying regardless of the law (to show how bans are silly). "
And you don't see how this is a strawman argument? What is more is I specifically answered your point here. ""People are carrying anyway" Here is the thing, they are not carrying. Because it is currently against the law, and law abiding people who get a concealed carry permit and purchase a leagally owned fire arm obey the law. They are much more reluctant to put their expensive fire arm at risk of being seized, of losing their right to carry, and having a felony or serious misdemeanor on their record.
So you set up this sort of bogus argument, and then knocked it down, to what end? It doesn't make sense. Bad guys break the law. Good guys obey it even if the law is foolish and essentially unconstitutional. Good guys work within the system to change a bad law. Even if it takes a long time. But that is another matter."
Here is a link for you to see for your self!
I don't care what other people did, I was addressing your comments.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
No, you don't get it Tsch
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:39am.People are carrying anyway
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 6:29pm.oooh, sick burn
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 6:33pm.Holy smokes!! Are you just trying to explode my neural network?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 6:39pm.Her gun didn't prevent anyone from dying,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 8:58pm.I believe we need to think about how to prevent crimes, not just react to them.
Guns have their place in society and I would never try to take them away because most people are good and don't do crazy or evil things with them. If we are going to have access to tools that kill people, I believe a responsibility comes with that to steer our society toward a more non-violent approach to those tools. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, it's true. I disagree that we should point the finger anywhere but directly at people who advocate for widespread gun availability. Let's come up with some solutions to our problems that start before they become problems and aren't just reactions to the problems.
Rob,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 5:09am.that little paragraph sounded like an Obama speech. Sounds great, but just words, how to you make it happen?
As for your statement that "she" didn't prevent anyone from dying is incorrect. You only have to look at what happened at the earlier chuch when there was no counter to his violent attack. Clearly he planned on the same at the second church, but a brave woman engaged the wacko, and saved lives. The only thing we don't know is just how many lives she saved.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
A start
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:24am.What does that do for a
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 12:26pm.I see your point in trying to prevent future sociopaths, but when lives are in immediate danger action has to taken right now.
Your comment that the woman didn't save any lives is an insult and a slap in the face. I'm positive that wasn't your intent and I know I'm guilty of the same infraction from time to time so don't let me kick you.
Now take a little while to find your way in here
Now take a little while to make your story clear.
Nick Drake
I don't understand the preoccupation with one very small part
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 1:02pm.Hey, that's what I was going to say.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 2:31pm.She was not a security guard per se
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 4:48pm.She was not there in any official capacity, but rather as a parishoner and volunteer. She had to rely on her private concealed weapons permit to carry her gun, not any badge. The fact that she had previous experience and training is a plus. A lot of gun carrying citizens have prior military or law enforcement training. This does not negate the right place/right time facts. I am not ex military or LEO but I have received some formal training, and hope to have much more.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
She was a regular joe
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 6:32pm.Mr. Richards
Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:50am.You said, "Her gun didn't prevent anyone from dying, it helped one die." I don't understand how you can say this considering it was found that the murderers intent was to lash out at as many as he could get to. How can you assume that he was done killing and the guard killed him after the completion of his task? As I understand it, he was just started and cut down preventing further loss of life.
As someone who stridently rebukes the death penalty, I do not see this as 'one more died'. The guard did her job. She saved lives almost with out question. About the only way one could say that 'one more died' in the context you refer to is if there was no one else at the church at the time. I am 99% sure this was not the case.
As for the rest of your missive, the availability of guns does not increase crime. Bad people are bad people, with or without guns.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
"Most violent society"?
Submitted by Jurjen S. on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 1:12pm.nice
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 7:35pm.Reality
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 12:26pm.Wait, What...
Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 4:50pm.What were you saying about not surrendering to a culture of fear? It seems that this is what you imply doing so that the liberal establishment can effectivly circumvent the second amendment.
Want to know who the bad guy is? He is the one wantonly shooting his fellow class mates. The one trying to take his revenge on society for not treating him the way he thought he sould be treated. How much death could have been stopped if a teacher was permitted to carry a legal firearm in this situation? Link.
C.
One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.
Thomas Sowell
I'm only responding to those who assume
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:17pm.Would have, could have
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:53pm.The possibilities are endless...
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:51pm.I'm gonna agree with Rob
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:55pm.The point I want to make
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 9:11pm.And I'm really glad for this second chance without angry comments, is that civil liberties are civil liberties. Many college campus' in this state have some sort of statement in their code of conduct about respecting or honoring civil rights or constitutional rights, and then procede to state no guns allowed, despite the right to bear arms is carefully enshrined in our state constitution. We have already seen crazy people will acquire weapons and kill people despite laws and well meaning actions, or a handfull of police. Why deny law abiding people their rights? I could go to TESC and speak out against Israel or support animal rights, be secure in my person and property from warrantless searches, and enjoy every other constitutional freedom, except one. Why?
There was a time in history when many scholars were fighting men, and fighting men were scholars. Thomas Jefferson advocated scholarly learning, and learning the skills of the gun. I simply am not willing to be disarmed and place my life in the hands of others. Police cannot be everywhere at once. They respond to crimes in progress, and occassionaly happen to be in the right place at the right time. Citizens are responsible for their own protection. To leave a large group of people vulnerable is criminal.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
It's all good
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:01pm.I can see that one...
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 10:07pm."Which civil rights should we prohibit here?" "Speech? Naw, unless it's really conservative, then we can ban it." "Privacy? Sure, after all what do people have to hide? It's for their own safety after all. Who can say if they aren't hiding a bomb or something?" "Racial or sexual equality? Gotta keep 'em." "Religion? We keep the fashionable offbeat ones, and anything except mainstream religion. Oh, lean on the Jews a bit too, Israel has launched too many missiles lately." "Guns? Oh heavens no, why should anyone be allowed to defend themselves? Take 'em from the cops too, we don't need that kind of image on campus." Etc,etc, etc...
That is why there is an enumeration of rights in the state constitution. To protect them.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Amen S6
Submitted by JT on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 5:00am.n/t
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
"To protect them. "
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:27am.Actually...
Submitted by Jurjen S. on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:56am.Quoth S6: "I could go to TESC and speak out against Israel or support animal rights, be secure in my person and property from warrantless searches, and enjoy every other constitutional freedom, except one."
I've been given to understand by a member of the Evergreen staff (albeit not in an official capacity) that it is legal to carry on the Evergreen campus if you are in possession of a CPL. I think the fudge (to avoid issues of constitutionality) is that licensed concealed carry constitutes authorized possession of a firearm, whereas the Student Conduct Code and Workplace Violence Policy only prohibit unauthorized possession. I haven't verified this yet, though, so don't take my word for it. As it happens, I have a meeting of the Police Services Community Review Board coming Monday afternoon so I'll have an opportunity to chat with the Grievance Officer.
Chief Sorger will be unable to attend, so we'll be able to adhere to principles of "human cooperation and scholarly inquiry" for a change, since he normally attends wearing his duty sidearm. (To clarify, that's a sarcastic remark on this comment by Rick in the previous thread on SB 6860.)
Still, if state law (specifically Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution and RCW 9.41) doesn't trump the colleges' and universities' regulations, why would there a need for SB 6304 "Allowing institutions of higher education to adopt rules regulating firearms on campus"? Doesn't the existence of that bill suggest that the currently existing regs of TESC, SPSCC and, I'm sure, others are not as absolute as their administrators would like us to believe?
Interesting
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 4:58pm.I threw TESC out as an example as their social contract prohibits anything that can cause harm. This pretty much demands showing up at class butt naked carrying nothing :-)
At any rate, to open carry one does not need a license, yet that activity is clearly protected in law and by the courts. So does that constitute "authorized" :-) I keep meaning to get off my lazy butt and email TESC about carrying with a CPL. However even with the constant stream of unsolicited junk mail I get from them with current classes (and I have asked and demanded to quit getting this stuff) I really can't find any class that tickles my fancy.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Instead of a class with
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:09pm.Now take a little while to find your way in here
Now take a little while to make your story clear.
Nick Drake
Go on...
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:22pm.Don't know squat about KAOS or what programs you are talking about but you have my interest...
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Technically this is a
Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:46pm.KAOS 89.3 is a community radiostation located at Evergreen. While it is licensed to Evergreen it is not a College Station per se. While many programmers are alumni few are current students.
No Commercials (unless you count Underwriters). You play what you want based on what your show is supposed to be about. (Tammy's show is lyrics based; she likes Indie Pop but isn't limited to it. When I became a co-host I played harder, louder stuff when we were still Thursday Nights but switched to a more FCB base when we moved to Sunday Morning.)
Their music policy is 80% Independent Label. While Olybloggers such as Phan and I have been known to play a mainstream song a time or two it's frowned upon. It's strongly requested that when we dip into the 20% that we not play the Hits. So in my case when I've went ahead and put Eric Clapton or The Doors on the air it was some obscure track that I liked but which most likely has never been played on any of the major Clear Channel stations.
Their news and talk shows tend to lean towards the left but the focus is more on issues which are under-represented as opposed to pushing a political agenda. We're not Air America.
You have to call or email the station to get on the list for training, but once in it's hands-on, by the time you're done the answers to the certification test are a cinch.
Now take a little while to find your way in here
Now take a little while to make your story clear.
Nick Drake
even naked...
Submitted by chad360 on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 1:54pm....I'm a living weapon, just like Brock Samson on "The Venture Brothers".
>grin<
Well, I talked to the Grievance Officer
Submitted by Jurjen S. on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:52pm.Yup
Submitted by security_six on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:00pm.Because the WAC's are not criminal codes. They are administrative. At any rate I think they are a bunch of hypocrites at TESC, talking about how students share the same civil rights as anyone else does, and then denying them this most basic of human liberties. If I had nothing better to do with my time I would enroll in a class and see how long they could support the contradicting statements inside their silly little social contract. Besides I cannot find on their webpage that they offer classes in Linux and their "Constitutional Law" seems anything but... The sailing classes look interesting, but as far as coastal navigation, been there, done that and really have a healthy appreciation for the Oregon Coast.
The story so far: In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea. -The Restaurant at the end of the Universe
why should anyone be allowed to defend themselves?
Submitted by JT on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:40am.S6 is making a good point and I will take it a bit further. Self-defense is a "right".
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
Yes,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:47am.Nope,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:53am.they are limiting that right.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
So you don't believe in the right to control
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:16am.Not personal property,
Submitted by JT on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:28am.in a narrow sense anyway. Further, most colleges are State owned or at least state funded in a major way. So from a personal property point of view, they are way off the mark when compared to what I would consider private property.
Malls are much closer to being personal/private property than colleges. The courts have said that a citizen's rights to speak/demonstrate, trump the property owner's rights with respect to malls.
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
What if they did it democratically?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:29am.It just seems to me that a very small minority would actually carry, the ones that would carry would most likely be attention seekers, or out to prove some kind of a point or would just enjoy making people squirm.
insulting?
Submitted by chad360 on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:45am.>shocked<
Regardless of the not agreeing with a person, I'd have thought that saying stuff like this is not OK on OlyBlog? I'm not even into this topic but browsing here I saw your post:
"the ones that would carry would most likely be attention seekers, or out to prove some kind of a point or would just enjoy making people squirm"
--are you implying a bunch of stuff about S6?
I'm not sure if I'm "reading this wrong", but to me it seem like you are using a "back-handed" manner in which to basically insult S6 (as a person who OCs, etc...).
--I am definitely not trying to argue, but it does seem that what you said is a serious "put-down" to S6's belief(s)--
--I read your post in a way that means you are implying that S6 would act sadistically (making people squirm, etc...), and/or being a ego-maniac(sp?) seeking attention?!
...I hear what you are saying , but "jeez", is this really what you mean?!...
>gasp<
Not about S6 at all.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:59am.I thought...
Submitted by chad360 on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 4:19pm....you were saying that if folks could carry, that only a few would, and that those that carry would be doing so for what I'll sum up as "the wrong reasons" (attention, squirm-factor, etc...).
I thought what you were saying is that folks would carry for the "wrong reasons"...
...why that assumption about folks that carry?
I'm talking about a college campus here, not the whole world.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 4:36pm.I'm calling Bull-Malarky on you
Submitted by chad360 on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 2:01pm.Yeah, "what-ever" dude-
>I don't agree<
-you have not convinced me that you are being civil.
Okay...
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 4:52pm."It just seems to me that a very small minority would actually carry, the ones that would carry would most likely be attention seekers, or out to prove some kind of a point or would just enjoy making people squirm."
Is that how you view people who arm themselves for personal defense? The only time I am making a statement when I am carrying a gun is when I open carry. And that statement is nothing more than "Look it's legal. I'm peaceful. This can be a normal action for people in this state again." Plus it's a heck of a lot more comfortable to OC for me anyway than CC. I probably wouldn't OC on a college campus, Washington society is simply not ready for that yet. I probably would in Idaho or Arizona though. I would CC in a heartbeat (and finish some studies) if I could legally do so on a college campus.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Well
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 7:47pm.Lets take this a step further, if college students voted to exclude homosexuals, unwed mothers or people of color would that be right? What if they voted to exclude the Christian Bible and the Koran? Would that be okay? I think you get my point now. Rights cannot be abridged or suspended.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Ohhh, I give up.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 8:33pm.Why yes there is :-)
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 8:38pm.It is that group of people who will say they support civil liberties,and the constitution, and then in the next breath try and deny people the right (remember in this state bearing arms IS a right) to bear arms. Pretty absurd isn't it? They just pick and choose what rights they like and would deny the ones they don't like to everyone.
So as I am so fond of asking, and have yet to get answered here, "What other rights will you deny people?"
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
And as I'm fond of saying...
Submitted by Rick on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:00pm....carrying a gun is not comparable to race, gender, or other differences that are protected by civil rights. In short, there is no intrinsic right to carry a gun.
> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract
And as I'm
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 9:06pm.So fond of saying, "Have you read the State Constitution?" What part of "shall not be impaired" is hard to grasp? Suggest some study on the history of bearing arms and personal defense rights in this country.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
I believe that society is evolving away from guns,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 4:59pm.I've contributed to my last "gun rights" thread.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:40pm.I'm sorry
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 10:42pm.n/t
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
No, I’m sorry Six.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:48pm.It's all good
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:50pm.Nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you post or argue on these topics :-) Oh I'm sure I throw out plenty of "liberal agenda" statements, but I try to consistantly beat on the drum of the constitution and individual liberties... Well we can cross swords elsewhere!
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
nt
Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:33pm.Thank God
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 11:19pm.Woo hoo!!!
Submitted by JT on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 8:32am.S6 wins the argument!
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
No Matter What...
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 11:47am.Guns are a huge issue, both positive and negative.
2 stories just overnight:
Missouri Man Kills 5 At Kirkwood, MO City Council Meeting
Woman Kills 2, And Then Commits Suicide Herself At Louisiana College
In the first story, even armed police officers couldn't prevent the deaths of themselves and 3 others.
In the second story, I can't help but wonder if there hadn't been an armed person (professor or student with a CWP) in the classroom, this woman might not have succeeded in killing 2 innocent people. But then it goes back to the first story, even 2 armed police officers couldn't stop that gunman and in the end, the 2 police officers died and eventually other police officers killed the gunman.
So I guess even having some type of weapon in the room where shootings happen doesn't always prevent the shootings and deaths from happening.
Excellent point.
Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:07pm.> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract
But
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:01pm.It doesn't negate the fact that in Missouri it took armed people to put down an armed attack. Are you suggesting people shouldn't even have a chance at protection? I would rather go down shooting than go down without having ever offered resistance. You can passivly stand by and get gunned down. I'll be shooting back, throwing furniture, books, whatever I can.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
I will also add
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 6:01pm.Per Missouri law City Council meetings are off limits for armed citizens. You can't pack at them. Guess they worked this time too.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM
No ... concealed carry endorsement ... or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
...
(5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the body holding a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body which he or she is a member.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Kirkwood?
Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:10pm.Hey! Watch It!
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 12:45pm.I grew up in Kirkwood, my uncle lived there and his home was only a 4 hour drive from ours in Kansas City!
It's a beautiful city! Quaint, old fashioned, with an upper middle class to wealthy population!
It's definitely NOT a "messed up place"!
Unfortunately, like any city, there are bound to be a few bad people who snap. Not every city with "wood" in the name falls into the category of Holly
woodweird!You are right
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 7:22pm.Looks like
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 5:51pm.This didn't make it out of committee... OTOH a conflicting bill that would make it state law to ban guns on college campuses also didn't get out.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Hey, I got an idea...
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:12am.Let's not only allow guns on campuses, but give them out for free, too! I can only imagine the immense benefits of, say, a fully armed Greek Row. With all those football team members packin' heat, I know that I can rest easy that no crazy gunman's gonna spoil my academic day.
Besides, it'd make for really interesting frat parties.
The Canaanite's Call
I'm assuming you are being facetious
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 12:41am.