What do you think should be legal?

[nodaywithout]

In the old days (well before even my Grandpa was born) KIDS used to carry guns to school on a daily basis, they would hang the gun belt up at the back of the class and go on with thier day. Obviously this would not work in todays society but what I ask is do you think it should be legal for a properly liscensed and trained college student to CCW on campus?

and even better could this have stopped so many fatalities at Virginia Tech?

please take the poll and post your comments

[VegasGeorge]

It ought to be clear to everyone by now that "gun free zones" don't work, and are a dangerous idea. As far as I can tell, college students are no different than any other young people. I see no reason why they shouldn't be trusted to CCW safely and in a responsible manner.

[Standing Wolf]

I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about licensing, training, permits, concealment, or any of that baloney.

[VegasGeorge]

I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about licensing, training, permits, concealment, or any of that baloney.

Well, Standing Wolf, you are correct. There are no qualifications to the right to bear arms expressed in the Constitution. However, rights are not absolute. You probably know the old adage about having no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment right to free speech notwithstanding. Allowing a homicidal psychopath to carry a gun would be foolish, and the right to bear arms shouldn't extend to RPGs. So, I think we all will have to agree to some form of limitation or qualification of the right to bear arms. The CCW permit laws in the various "shall issue" States are not a bad starting place. We just have to keep vigilant and support the politicians who are on our side of the gun control issues.

[Bill of Rights]

I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about licensing, training, permits, concealment, or any of that baloney.

Well, Standing Wolf, you are correct. There are no qualifications to the right to bear arms expressed in the Constitution. However, rights are not absolute. You probably know the old adage about having no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment right to free speech notwithstanding. Allowing a homicidal psychopath to carry a gun would be foolish, and the right to bear arms shouldn't extend to RPGs. So, I think we all will have to agree to some form of limitation or qualification of the right to bear arms. The CCW permit laws in the various "shall issue" States are not a bad starting place. We just have to keep vigilant and support the politicians who are on our side of the gun control issues.
George, I have to differ with you here. I don't see that we have the authority to prevent the psychopath from carrying, however, we do have the right to end any violence he might do. If he's a homicidal psychopath, the more essential question is, "Why is he out where he can threaten anyone?" Further, as the original intent was for the individual citizen to have the same weapons as the military (because the latter did not exist except AS the former), and because the intent was to prevent government tyranny, why should RPGs, automatic weapons, or any ordnance be restricted only to people who are addressed by rank? Were the ships used in our fight for independence all governmentally owned? They were the height of martial technology at the time. If such things are expensive due to the laws of capitalism, fine, but to limit them arbitrarily runs counter to original intent. (What did taxing at high rate the ownership of silencers or automatic weapons ever do to prevent or even decrease by one single incident any violent crime?)

Also, different states have differing laws on where one can and cannot carry, as you of all people know. Where I live, in IN, I can carry in any bar, liquor store, stadium, hospital, etc., and have no ill contact with the law, yet other places restrict all of those. Are the locations (states) so different that a bar in one state has no risk from a peaceable armed patron, but a bar in another does? Lastly, I'm ambivalent on the issue of CCW permits. On the one hand, I like that we are the most law-abiding single group in any given place, but on the other, I recognize that the power to tax, regulate, etc., is the power to destroy, and I don't want the rights that are protected by the 2A to be at that kind of risk.

Many places allow open carry without permit, and this might be a good way to go, restricting no one from lawful self defense, which would be Constitutional. Fortunately or unfortunately, "shall not be infringed" would be violated if CCWs were restricted.

Please understand that while I disagree, I do respect your opinions and right to express them.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Well, when I said " I think we all will have to agree to some form of limitation or qualification of the right to bear arms." I didn't mean that we would all like it. I just don't foresee it ever being otherwise.

[Bill of Rights]

Well, when I said " I think we all will have to agree to some form of limitation or qualification of the right to bear arms." I didn't mean that we would all like it. I just don't foresee it ever being otherwise.

It probably won't be; certainly not if we don't work to change what parts of it we can. Then again, I'm sure there are some who didn't believe that DC's ban on ownership would ever be struck down.

Personally, not only do I not like restrictions on ownership, carry, or possession, I think they're dangerous and will at the very least voice my opinion to my Congress-critters on the subjects. Often.

(I think they're getting sick of seeing my name. Hopefully, that's not true here as well! :shock: )

Blessings,
M

[hpj3]

[quote=Standing Wolf]I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about licensing, training, permits, concealment, or any of that baloney.

Well, Standing Wolf, you are correct. There are no qualifications to the right to bear arms expressed in the Constitution. However, rights are not absolute. You probably know the old adage about having no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment right to free speech notwithstanding."

Guess it's time to get stir the puddin a little...

The BoR was included in the CoTUS at the insistance of numerous representatives to clarify that the rights enumerated were pre-existing, not granted by government... that these rights could not be withdrawn, repealed, or infringed.
I've seen the "... fire in a theater" reference many times, and the response is the same. You have every right to yell FIRE in a theater (especially if there is one :shock: ) If there isn't, you must be ready to accept the consequences. This is the core problem we face in fighting gun control - convincing the nay-sayers that the proper route is to deal with the ACTION - not the "possibility" of an action.

The possibility of "repealing" the 2A surfaces regularly on the anti- blogs, drive-by media, Brady Insane Asylum, etc. Reference the comment above - the BoR is not subject to repeal, since it doesn't grant any rights - it specifically enumerates pre-existing rights that cannot be infringed by government. To my mind, this is a point we must continue to keep in the forefront of our dealings with the anti- crowd.

We have to come up with a way to re-educate society that being armed is acceptable - just as it was in our not-to-distant past. This must originate at the local grassroots level.

Howard

[Bill of Rights]

Well, Standing Wolf, you are correct. There are no qualifications to the right to bear arms expressed in the Constitution. However, rights are not absolute. You probably know the old adage about having no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the 1st Amendment right to free speech notwithstanding."

Hi and thanks for writing. Welcome to CCDN. The above is correct in spirit: The 1A states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

There is in fact, no law against entering a theater of whatever size and filled to whatever capacity and screaming "Fire".

Your point about accepting the consequences is dead-on accurate as well as tragically absent today.

This must change!

Blessings,
M

[HairyEyeball]

Precisely how many more 'demonstrations' are necessary before it becomes obvious that 'designated victim zones' don't work? That "No nasty eeevil guns allowed" signs are as effective at stopping the predatory and deranged as taking off your watch is at stopping time from elapsing?

Almost every college campus in the country has, among its students and teachers, people who are trained and experienced in the use of arms - in the military, in law enforcement, and through their own private effort and expense. By abrogating their right (precisely which part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?) and destroying their ability to protect themselves and others, all that is accomplished is the sacrifice of lives in furtherance of a political agenda.

Almost every incident involving armed attacks at schools has ended with the perpetrator(s) dead by his own hand. In very one of those incidents, armed, aware, qualified individuals could have reduced the number of innocent victims, and the perpetrator(s) would be just as dead.

As to the artificial 'requirement' that an individual must beg the government for permission to exercise a right, and pay a bribe to have it 'granted', there may be some justification - but the fault lies more with the public at large than with 'the authorities'. Many of us realize the responsibility concomitant with going armed, and regularly clean, maintain, and practice with our anti-assault tool of choice. We seek to master the art and science of armed self-defense fully aware of the broad range of unpleasant possibilities inherent in inadequacy. Unfortunately, we are a minority.

Too many who choose to go armed receive their 'training' from movies and television, and given the option, would restrict their handling of the firearm to mere fondling, showing off, and only unholster it under duress - leading to random bullet placement at best, innocent casualties or another firearm in the hands of a predator at worst. Unless and until safety, maintenance, legal and practical training is voluntary, there is some slight justification for it being mandatory.

We have also ovinely submitted to the premise that the levying of any tax or tariff by any appellation - 'user fee', 'license fee' - is acceptable, is 'the cost of doing business'. 'Tain't so. If the government had no need to employ 'law enforcement personnel' to keep illegal records of its citizens and their property, there would be no reason for illicit 'laws', no reason for yet another bloated bureaucracy, and more law enforcement personnel out in the streets enforcing the law. If the government expended less effort criminalizing its citizens by the stroke of a pen, there would be fewer 'criminals' in general and a greater percentage sequestered in penal institutions.

You've all seen how, with the government's assistance, what was done to 'big tobacco': We're all taxed for government subsidies to tobacco growers, and those who use tobacco are taxed for the 'privilege', for ads and commercials attacking them, and to subsidize totally unrelated government programs - in Arizona, $18 dollars per carton for medical care and education of illegal invaders. Does anyone doubt that firearms will be the next target of taxes, fees, 'licenses' and further regulations? Or that - unlike smokers, who are only second-class citizens - firearms and their owners are 'registered' and identified, and those lists will be used against us?