Students Debate Over The Right To Carry On Campus

[blindsage]

You want guarantees? I don't know where you could ever find that in regards to anything. How do you guarantee that no innocent will never get hurt.

Never said you could guarantee that innocents would never get hurt, but I'd rather not propose a solution that's actually just as likely to contribute to or exacerbate the problem.

 

[blindsage]

Require a permit.
Require a training class.
Require a test.
Before granting the permit.
Require recertification every few years to keep the permit.
Charge a nominal fee, say $65, renewable every 10 years.

Like a drivers license.
or a fishing license, or a hunting license, etc.

Agreed.

 

[blindsage]

A fishing, hunting, or driver's license is not guaranteed by the Constitution. I find this argument flawed.

It's not denying the right, it's regulating it's exercise.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not denying the right, it's regulating it's exercise.

Good idea. We should also have government tests to make sure religions are safe and not dangerous. All religions should be licensed, and all believers should be tested and licensed to make sure they hold acceptably-safe beliefs.

Same for publications - such as this forum. Every forum should have to be regulated to make sure it is not advocating violence, or is fomenting rebellion, or is disrespectful of government. People who post should have to be licensed to make sure they have sufficient education to speak on the subjects they post about, and they should be regulated so that they do not say anything that could be interpreted as dangerous to the well-being of society.

The right to freedom from self-incrimination should be regulated too. We don't want people to claim it who are actually probably guilty, so they'll have to prove they have nothing to hide before they can claim and use the right.

Um, that whole right to publicly assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is fine too, but it should be regulated. Everyone should have a license and a background check before they can gather in groups larger than three, and anyone who carries a sign and protests anything must be regulated to ensure they don't say anything detrimental to the status quo.

Maybe we could have a new flag too. Some kind of red and black number, with a powerful symbol that ... oh wait, that one has been used. Well, we'll come up with something, I'm sure.

 

[Carol]

I can see both sides of the argument. I think allowing them to carry, in a safe and responsible manner, is the best solution. Those who "show off", those who cause problems, and certainly those who can't legally carry, should not have that privilege.

Concealed means NO ONE knows you have it, and if there are issues then they should be dealt with by the police. The only regulation that I would do would be to revoke any scholarships or financial aid from a student convicted of a gun crime.

 

[MJS]

I too, can see both sides. One side wants to be able to protect themselves and others, in the event some nutjob starts using students for target practice, and the other side is probably think that in the event something does happen, you're now going to have a bunch of people wanting to play hero, engaging in a shootout with the badguy, when in reality, its not even their job, but the job of the police.

As I always say, I'm not against people owning or carrying guns. I am against people thinking that by taking the local pistol permit class, that they're now ready to engage someone in a stressfull situation, low light, moving targets, etc. I doubt that the people at a college are going to be going that extra mile. They're most likely going to think that by carrying, they'll be able to save the day. Maybe they will, and maybe they'll be more of a hinderance than anything else.

In the end, something tells me that this probably will not happen.

 

[Aniela13]

My school recently underwent this debate...and decided to take a "nonaction" course that leaves things as they are, with no concealed carry allowed. I can see both sides of the issue, which shocks my less-gun-friendly classmates who know me rather well (meaning, as soon as I come of age I will be applying for a concealed carry permit...and money is already being put aside for my pistol).

I can see the self-defense argument; if someone pulled a gun and began firing on my classmates, I would love nothing more than to have my own weapon readily available to retaliate and neutralize the threat. However...if two students get into an argument, one blows his lid and pulls his gun, then shoots the other...the existing policy would have saved that student's life. Even in a truly threatening situation like the one in my self-defense example--once the police arrive, if I and five other classmates all have guns drawn, they have to take our word for it that the dead person was the one who started it.

For me...I'm on private property, so I play by their rules. Playing by their rules, in my case, means they allow me to carry up to a 3" blade on a pocketknife--so the knife on my person at all times has exactly a 3" blade. In my own room on-campus, I have all of my weapons from my MA training, which are permitted...and I pity the one unwise enough to come in with harmful intentions.

Good points have been raised by all...I eagerly await the schools' responses to these protests!

~Ani

 

[blindsage]

Good idea. We should also have government tests to make sure religions are safe and not dangerous. All religions should be licensed, and all believers should be tested and licensed to make sure they hold acceptably-safe beliefs.

Same for publications - such as this forum. Every forum should have to be regulated to make sure it is not advocating violence, or is fomenting rebellion, or is disrespectful of government. People who post should have to be licensed to make sure they have sufficient education to speak on the subjects they post about, and they should be regulated so that they do not say anything that could be interpreted as dangerous to the well-being of society.

The right to freedom from self-incrimination should be regulated too. We don't want people to claim it who are actually probably guilty, so they'll have to prove they have nothing to hide before they can claim and use the right.

Um, that whole right to publicly assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is fine too, but it should be regulated. Everyone should have a license and a background check before they can gather in groups larger than three, and anyone who carries a sign and protests anything must be regulated to ensure they don't say anything detrimental to the status quo.

Maybe we could have a new flag too. Some kind of red and black number, with a powerful symbol that ... oh wait, that one has been used. Well, we'll come up with something, I'm sure.

All of those right are regulated to some extent or another. You have the freedom of religion unless and until you try to institutionalize it in the government. You have the right to publish in print or a forum anything you want until it's picture's of naked children, or an attempt to commit fraud. The right to not incriminate oneself is guaranteed unless you've already confessed in the right context before invoking the 5th amendment. You've have the right to publicly assemble until you start rioting and damaging property. I'm really not sure what the flag has to do with it. We regulate our constituional right all the time for purposes of public safety, and the public good, but somehow the right to bear arms is exempt from the standards we impose on every single one of our other constitional rights?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

..........think that in the event something does happen, you're now going to have a bunch of people wanting to play hero, engaging in a shootout with the badguy, when in reality, its not even their job, but the job of the police.

As I always say, I'm not against people owning or carrying guns. I am against people thinking that by taking the local pistol permit class, that they're now ready to engage someone in a stressfull situation, low light, moving targets, etc. I doubt that the people at a college are going to be going that extra mile. They're most likely going to think that by carrying, they'll be able to save the day. Maybe they will, and maybe they'll be more of a hinderance than anything else.

.

Just on record, I've never had anyone come through one of my classes with that attitude ( if they came in with it, it's gone by the time my partner and I are done explaining the real world to them).

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

It's not denying the right, it's regulating it's exercise.

Sorry, but the definition of of the word "infringe" is violate or transgress. If a government institution is telling you when you can and cannot "bear arm", then they are violating the constitution.

Never said you could guarantee that innocents would never get hurt, but I'd rather not propose a solution that's actually just as likely to contribute to or exacerbate the problem.

How do you know that it's just as likely to contribute to the problem. Again, the statistics show that in states that have liberal concealed carry permit laws, the levels of violent crime are lower then those without them. Also, there have been many instances where the mere brandising of a firearm in these situations has stopped the threat. Convince me that they would actually be more of a problem, then I might agree with you on that point.

They're most likely going to think that by carrying, they'll be able to save the day.

Why would you say that?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All of those right are regulated to some extent or another. You have the freedom of religion unless and until you try to institutionalize it in the government. You have the right to publish in print or a forum anything you want until it's picture's of naked children, or an attempt to commit fraud. The right to not incriminate oneself is guaranteed unless you've already confessed in the right context before invoking the 5th amendment. You've have the right to publicly assemble until you start rioting and damaging property. I'm really not sure what the flag has to do with it. We regulate our constituional right all the time for purposes of public safety, and the public good, but somehow the right to bear arms is exempt from the standards we impose on every single one of our other constitional rights?

First, you're not actually right about most of the examples you used. You still have the right 'peaceably' to assemble, for example, even if you riot and damage property - those are stand-alone crimes, for which you can (and should) be arrested and prosecuted. You do not lose your right to continue to peaceably assemble then or in the future.

Second, none of them are applied by the government to individuals. We do not license an individual before they can preach, or print, or invoke their right to freedom from self-incrimination. Yet when we come to 'reasonable' restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, it's all about the person - we want them licensed, we want their gun registered (to them). It's the only right in which we invoke proscriptions based on the person and not the action.

Third, only the 2nd Amendment ends in the statement "shall not be infringed." That's a very clear statement, and it means precisely what it says.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

All of those right are regulated to some extent or another. You have the freedom of religion unless and until you try to institutionalize it in the government.

Regulated by the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law.....

You have the right to publish in print or a forum anything you want until it's picture's of naked children, or an attempt to commit fraud.

A picture is not speech. It's a picture. Besides which, the intention of the law is to not deny a person the right of political speech, which has then been extended to other things.

I'm not quite sure how you can commit fraud with speech. Certainly you can be held civily liable for slander, but a tort is different then government regulation.

The right to not incriminate oneself is guaranteed unless you've already confessed in the right context before invoking the 5th amendment.

You still have the right. If you confess to a crime, you have certainly let the cat out of the bag. But, you have no compulsion to confess again. Remember, the right is not against self-incrimination, it's about the government forcing you to incriminate yourself.

You've have the right to publicly assemble until you start rioting and damaging property.

Handled by the Constitution: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....

I'm really not sure what the flag has to do with it. We regulate our constituional right all the time for purposes of public safety, and the public good, but somehow the right to bear arms is exempt from the standards we impose on every single one of our other constitional rights?

As I have shown, your examples are flawed. We do not regulate the constitution.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just to be clear, I love you folks.
Especially when you punch holes in my arguments.

 

[blindsage]

First, you're not actually right about most of the examples you used. You still have the right 'peaceably' to assemble, for example, even if you riot and damage property - those are stand-alone crimes, for which you can (and should) be arrested and prosecuted. You do not lose your right to continue to peaceably assemble then or in the future.

Second, none of them are applied by the government to individuals. We do not license an individual before they can preach, or print, or invoke their right to freedom from self-incrimination. Yet when we come to 'reasonable' restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, it's all about the person - we want them licensed, we want their gun registered (to them). It's the only right in which we invoke proscriptions based on the person and not the action.

Third, only the 2nd Amendment ends in the statement "shall not be infringed." That's a very clear statement, and it means precisely what it says.

Regulated by the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law.....



A picture is not speech. It's a picture. Besides which, the intention of the law is to not deny a person the right of political speech, which has then been extended to other things.

I'm not quite sure how you can commit fraud with speech. Certainly you can be held civily liable for slander, but a tort is different then government regulation.



You still have the right. If you confess to a crime, you have certainly let the cat out of the bag. But, you have no compulsion to confess again. Remember, the right is not against self-incrimination, it's about the government forcing you to incriminate yourself.



Handled by the Constitution: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....



As I have shown, your examples are flawed. We do not regulate the constitution.

Thanks both of you for your clear, logical and useful responses. I've been mulling over this issue for quite a long time trying to reconcile some things in my brain. I think you, and some additional research, have helped me come to some conclusions.

It's evident to me that you are both right. The constitution protects the right of our citizens to own and carry firearms (whether this goes so far as to apply to grenade launchers or fighter jets is a whole other discussion). I will stand up and acknowledge this in the future and, I think, be able to clearly elucidate the fact of it. I also have concluded that I disagree with the constitution in that I think there should be limitations on what types of arms individuals should be able to own. That being said, until a constitutional amendment comes along to change the constitution to my preference, I will acknowledge what the constitution actually says and it's intent.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also have concluded that I disagree with the constitution in that I think there should be limitations on what types of arms individuals should be able to own.

You just said a mouthful. I agree. I think most people agree, at some point or another. I don't think that people should be allowed to own hand grenades, for example. And I even agree with the people who think that the Framers were not thinking of hand grenades when they ratified the Second Amendment. The only part I disagree with them about is that BECAUSE the Framers didn't think of hand grenades, and most of us agree that people should not privately own hand grenades that THEREFORE we can ban them. The Bill of Rights just doesn't work like that, even if we wish it would sometimes.

It's an ugly thing. A common contrivance, a mutual but always unspoken and for damn sure denied understanding that SOME kind of gun control is necessary, even that which says convicted felons and people who are insane or addicted to illegal drugs should not have guns, or that no one should be driving around with a mortar in the back of their pick up truck.

We therefore usually do not seek - on either side of the gun control debate - to push the Supreme Court to the real limit - to either acknowledge that the Second Amendment allows some limits or to open the floodgates to every form of weapon known to man. Most of us are more-or-less content to let sleeping dogs lie - you know?

The recent Heller case was a victory for the pro-gun people, because it pushed back what had been seen as constitutional restrictions on personal ownership, but I don't think too many people want to go THAT much further with it. Most pro-gunners don't want to give anything up, but they also don't want to see convicts legally armed the day they get out of prison, either, if you know what I mean.

That being said, until a constitutional amendment comes along to change the constitution to my preference, I will acknowledge what the constitution actually says and it's intent.

The Framers had the right idea, I think. The right to have and bear arms is a fundamental aspect of liberty, always demonstrating that rights in the USA are not given but pre-exist the nation, not granted, but recognized and protected, and that the ultimate power rests in the hands of the people, not just symbolic power but real power.

In the use of guns, as in the use of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on, we are not always wise, we are not always just, we do not always do the right thing. We treat ourselves and others with disrespect, disregard, and at times we abandon everything that makes us decent and honorable and worthy. But we never stop being free. Sometimes freedom means even the ugly will continue to exist, despite what we hope are the angels of our better nature.