Colorado bans guns from college campuses.

[zanne]

About time. It looks like some people are having their brains tuned.

[rd_kent]

1. Uh, yeah...tuned....so that someone who wants to repeat the VA school shooting

can guarantee that the people on the Colorado campuses will be unarmed too. Yeah thats smart.

[timeforpeace]

13. Precisely the opposite lesson was learned. PC will kill us all.

[proteus_lives]

27. +1000

That's the truth.

[kestrel91316]

2. I applaud this. There is no earthlly reason to be packing heat on a college campus.

Sends an important message to people who think guns are the way to solve all of life's problems.

[DonP]

5. I'm sure the violent and mentally impaired will receive the message loud and clear

How dumb do you have to be to think that this will have any impact on the kind of person that shoots up a college classroom?

All this does is make sure that the otherwise legally licensed adults in the state can no longer carry on their person when on campus. That worked out really well in Pearl Mississippi, didn't it?

You have to stop thinking that the law abiding that pass the national background check, get fingerprinted, jump through the training and qualification hoops with the local police are somehow the problem. In the states that keep track of it, concealed carry holders are from 7 to 10 times less likely than the average citizen, you know people like you, to commit any kind of crime.

Or are you one of those that thinks guns emit a powerful mind control ray that twists minds and make an otherwise honest, law abiding person a violent criminal?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Street crime can, and does, come on campus too.

Guns don't solve ALL of life's problems, but they do solve one of them. They give the weak the ability to resist the strong. Muggers can't depend upon elderly people being easy victims because Granny may be packing.

[Euromutt]

9. Could you build that straw man a little bigger?

I don't think there's a person in the world who thinks that "guns are the way to solve all of life's problems," but when you're in the building with an active shooter and police response is still several minutes out, having a firearm certainly gives you some extra options.

I can agree with that there should be no earthly reason to carry a firearm in an ideal world, but unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. The Virginia Tech shootings occurred in spite of a campus gun ban; last January, in a cafe on the same campus, one Chinese student used a kitchen knife to stab another Chinese student to death and then decapitate her before the cops could arrive. People intent on murder, let alone mass murder, are not deterred by signs, policies, or even laws that prohibit the possession of firearms or other weapons at the scene of the prospective crime. I don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The only way to stop such people is by countervailing force, or threat thereof, and if you have to wait for the police to arrive and provide that force, it is almost certainly going to be too late for somebody.

[hack89]

10. So there will be more illegally carried guns on campus

don't see this as an improvement.

[cabluedem]

43. People report the crime and its off to jail and a career ruined by the gun goblin. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

48. You FAIL.

First: It isn't a crime. It is a mere violation of college administration policy. You don't get arrested for that. The worst that can happen is that the college may kick you out and you have to go to another college. Definately no jail time, no criminal record.

Second: Concealed carry means CONCEALED. Other people don't get to know. If they don't know, they can't report anything. What part of "CONCEALED" are you having difficulty with?

[Euromutt]

56. It could be a bit worse than that

If your college or university expels you for a disciplinary violation, it does go in your academic record, and it's entirely possible that you're going to have a hell of a time finding another school that will accept you.

[cabluedem]

57. Exactly! So why take a chance and get arrested? Leave your guns at home. nt

[Euromutt]

58. You're still not getting that "it's not a criminal offense" part, are you?

You must be suffering from "gun-aversive dyslexia."

If the administration of CSU implements a prohibition on students and employees carrying on school grounds, such a prohibition will be an administrative policy; it will not have force of law, and it will not be a criminal offense to violate it (providing you have a concealed carry permit). Since it's not a criminal offense, you cannot be arrested for it (at least, not legitimately).

It is, moreover, entirely open to question whether this kind of policy, when adopted by a state school, will pass constitutional muster in a state the constitution of which guarantees the individual citizen's right to "keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property." The quoted passage is from Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado state constitution, by the way. The situation is more or less the same in Washington (where I live).

I can only speculate why these policies have not yet been challenged in a civil suit, but I suspect it's because few students have the inclination to invest the time and money required to pursue such a case of their own volition, and nobody's ever filed suit in response to being threatened with academic sanctions simply because no licensed concealed carrier has ever been caught and reported. It might have something to do with that "concealed" part.

As for why would take any chance, however small, carrying a firearm legally albeit it in violation of administrative policy, well, expulsion may suck but it beats falling victim to a campus shooter. Yeah, you may think it's implausible a concealed carrier could stop an "active shooter," but the fact is that armed students and faculty have stopped active shooters on more than one occasion and, more importantly, have never precipitated the confused shootouts and additional casualties that opponents of campus carry predict.

[paulsby]

74. i can't speak for colorado law

but i wouldn't be surprised at all if this administrative rule gets thrown out after the first kid is punished for it, and he appeals in a court of law (assuming that colorado protects the right to carry in their constitution or penal code).

let's not forget that colleges are famous for passing all sorts of restrictions on student conduct that routinely get rescinded before trial or lose at trial for being violative of student's rights.

FIRE has TONS of cases like this.

most of them in the past have been speech code type rules.

[paulsby]

75. fwiw, i carried a gun concealed during grad school

even though it was violative of school policy. it was a risk i was willing to take. it was a PRIVATE college, fwiw. no public college in WA state can legally restrict a student from carrying. it is unclear as to whether private schools can. the case law is unsettled.

[cabluedem]

86. In CA where we have sane laws, you would be charged with a criminal offense. No ifs, ands or buts.

as it should be. Looks like CO is doing the same. Too bad but logic and sanity win again. Get cuaght with a gun on campus, go to jail. Not a good way to achieve a successful career is it?

[eqfan592]

87. lol!

Thank you cabluedem. People like you help people on the fence on this issue figure out which side may be a bit more rational (and here's a tip, they aren't thinking it's you). ;)

[PavePusher]

89. Wow. Exercising a Civil Right...

Is a crime in your state?

What a godawful place to live.

Glad I live in Arizona. We're working on changing our law to reflect Utah/Colorado/Michigan for colleges/U's.

P.S. I'm gonna set up an ammo shop 10 feet east of your border and sell lots of them skaaaaaaary booolits to your citizens.

[cabluedem]

92. Sell all you want. Since ammo comes under ATF rules we can still go after you. nt

[Euromutt]

94. It's not against federal law to sell ammunition across state lines

Firearms, yes; ammunition, no. Also, as far as I can make out, AB962 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0951-1000/ab_962_bill_20090226_introduced.html) does not actually prohibit California residents from popping across the state lines to buy ammunition.

Once again, you're incapable of distinguishing what the law is from what you would like it to be.

[PavePusher]

97. Bwwwaaaaah ahahahahaha hahahahahaha!

Wow, you should be on stage.

[beevul]

104. If...

If you could be bothered to know what you are talking about, it would be great.

In the immortal words of another poster:

It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

[GreenStormCloud]

90. No bills to outlaw campus carry have been introduced into the CO state legislature.

Are you aware of any? At this time, at CSU it is a administrative policy, not a law. Are you aware of any pending changes in CO state law?

[Euromutt]

91. There are a few "ifs" and "buts," actually

You might want to check section 626.9 of the California Penal Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=626-626.11), specifically subsection (l):

(l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.

Emphasis in bold mine.
Yes, it's illegal in California to carry a loaded firearm onto the campus of an institution of tertiary education, but not if you have a California license to carry a concealable firearm. Of course, those can be a bit difficult to come by in California, depending on which county you live in, but the point remains that the law is not what you claim it is, cabluedem.

I think this discussion might be a bit more fruitful if you stopped from asserting your personal fantasies as fact. One university administration considering making it an administrative offense to possess a firearm on campus is hardly a harbinger of the state legislature making it a criminal offense to do so on every campus.

[cabluedem]

93. For all intents, unless you have money or are LE, you wont get a permit here, thankfully. nt

[Euromutt]

95. Yeah, thank heaven only the rich and connected can get permits

I'm sure someone who got his CCW permit in exchange for a generous contribution to the sheriff's campaign fund would never do something irresponsible, like getting drunk in a bar while carrying, get into an argument, flash his pistol at the other guy, place his hand on it and tell him he'd "better go the fuck around or there is going to be trouble."

Oh wait, James Colafresco did exactly that in Sacramento.

Well, I'm sure no chief LEO would issue a CCW permit to some celebrity who's been known in the past to have--shall we say?--impulse control issues (leading to a conviction for battery and at least one citation for reckless driving), and would then leave both his carry weapon in his car, from which they might be readily stolen.

Oh wait, the Ross Dept. of Public Safety did exactly that with Sean Penn.

Well, I'm sure there's no way a sheriff would form a "Posse" of his most loyal campaign contributors (none of whom happen to be members of ethnic minorities) and issue a CCW permit to any "Posse" member who applied for one, right?

Oh wait, that's exactly what Warren Rupf does in Contra Costa.

Yeah, be thankful for the discretionary powers of chief LEOs. I'm sure it keeps everyone in California much safer that "those people" can't get permits.

None of which, incidentally, changes the fact that your assertion with regard to California state law was just plain wrong.

[PavePusher]

96. Please show me your First Amendment permit...

or else kindly cease and desist your illegal inanities. Thanks!

[taurus145]

99. Amen!

I certainly trust Sean Penn above all others with a CCW. :puke:

[PavePusher]

105. "Some pigs is more equal than other pigs."

Very friggen enlightened of you. Do you even listen to the words coming out of your head?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. You won't get arrested at CSU. Other states, maybe. N/T

[hack89]

52. If it is concealed, how will anyone know? nt

[Euromutt]

54. Is the "gun goblin" something like the "tooth fairy"?

Are you conjuring up mythical creatures now? It would be consistent with the grasp on reality--or more precisely, lack thereof--that you tend to display on this forum. Seriously, has the idea ever occurred to you that the way the world actually works is not the way you imagine it should?

[PavePusher]

11. You're right.

Who would ever need to indulge in self-defense, right?

[rd_kent]

15. Unless you are at a school like VA tech........

I guess ther IS an earthly reason, huh?

[eqfan592]

23. Bullshit

Tell that to every school shooting victim there ever has been. "Gun free zones" just made them lambs for the slaughter.

[aikoaiko]

33. No one who legally carries a gun thinks guns are a way to solve all of life problems

So you message isn't being heard by anyone. That's fuckin brilliant.

[aikoaiko]

34. !

!

[TheWraith]

55. How about the number of rapes that occur on a college campus?

Banning weapons provides a free hunting zone for drunken, violent fratboys.

[paulsby]

76. and at least in my state

it is lawful to use deadly force to prevent a rape

i take offense at your bigotry towards fratboys though!

[OttavaKarhu]

69. Typical rich white liberal heterosexist able-bodied view

In a nutshell:

" *I* feel safe and privileged.

"Therefore everyone else is required to be a martyr to my inflated sense of self-importance and exceptionalism.

"Also, I have a caste of working class women and men putting their lives on the line to protect my safety. It's up to them to do this labor, not me.

"Also, I hate them. For being pigs."

I am appalled by this kind of response. In Seattle we just had a mass murdering fuckhead running around, spotted on the UW campus, armed, and gunning for more victims.

We have people robbed, beaten, bashed, and raped on the UW campus.

It was on another major university campus that I was attacked by a kevlar-wearing fetus-worshipping wackaloon for the crime of going into the women's clinic.

But according to you, that doesn't constitute Any Earthly Reason for a woman, a queer, an elder, a person in a wheelchair to carry the means of self protection? What planet do you live on?

Just more reason for me to gel in my belief that to be "liberal" and "Democrat" means also despising the vulnerable while giving lip service to caring about them.

By the way "Packing Heat" is a phrase used by people apparently ignorant of the fact that guns do not produce heat. Guns produce protection. But if you don't have that much straight, I can understand why you're so scared of them. Maybe if you bothered to learn something about firearms and the people who protect themselves with them, you might have to change your mind.

Oh wait. To be a liberal Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, not even when rich white liberal heterosexist able-bodied ethics lead to the victimization of exactly all those libDems make such a big deal out of pretending to care about.

[paulsby]

77. at least here in WA

at the UW and elsehwere you CAN carry legally.

i did so the other day

[cabluedem]

103. Having a gun rarely stops rapists or serial killers and that a fact you goons dont like to hear. nt

[paulsby]

72. who are these people?

they only exist in your fantasies.

the VAST majority of people who carry concealed never fire their weapon at anybody.

fwiw, the average cop only fires his weapon at a person about once every 12 yrs (last time i checked the stats)

[paulsby]

73. EVEN if there were NO reason

to carry on campus, it still creates a problem for people who carry OFF campus. what do they do when they walk on to campus? are there kiosks where they can secure their guns?

[Euromutt]

82. At Evergreen, you can check weapons with police services

Well, notionally, anyway; the implication is that you'd better have a damn good reason for even bringing the weapon to campus in the first place, and that the fact that you carry off-campus isn't quite good enough. Though that said, I suspect the campus cops are nowhere near as tight-assed about it as the administration is.

[paulsby]

84. it's still legal

and if evergreen thinks it can discipline a student for carrying on campus, they will lose if she takesw it to court

[cabluedem]

85. Agreed! The gun goons lost out again and sane gun laws won. nt

[eqfan592]

88. care to point out the "law" that you speak of? :P (nt)

[taurus145]

98. Tell that to the families and victims at VT n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

3. If guns on campus are so evil, how come Utah hasn't had any problems?

In Utah, it is illegal for a public college to ban guns on campus.

[paulsby]

78. or WA

i have seen no problems here. it's legal here

[Arctic Dave]

4. I wonder if those feel that their rights are being taken away will move to another school.

[PavePusher]

12. Don't know about "move away"...

But I, for one, will certainly never apply there. And if I was already there, I would continue to carry. After the USSC spanks Chicago, I hope someone in Colorado files a Civil Rights suit against the College.

[Arctic Dave]

14. I don't think this falls under "civil rights" considering they aren't infringing on your

rights to own a gun just your ability to have one on their property.

[rd_kent]

16. Not all campuses are private property

[NewMoonTherian]

18. This is a really tough situation for me.

I fully support private institutions' right to ban anything they choose(guns, beer, Bibles, blacks, whites or moon men) from their property, but seeing massacres like VT really gives me pause. Is allowing colleges to ban armed self-defense really worth the death and pain that result?

Are schools that ban guns vulnerable to lawsuits by the families of shooting victims? That seems more than fair; they're not only misfeasant for denying students a reasonable means of defense, they're incompetent at enforcing the ban.

[Arctic Dave]

19. I never heard of an institution being sued after a mass killing. Give it a shot next time.

No pun intended.

As for VT, I wasn't aware they had a gun ban on it. If they didn't, what happened?

[PavePusher]

21. VT does have a gun ban.

http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf

It was even pointed to as a model of success after the shooting incident. I shit you not.

Edit: Can't find a cite for that, but I remember reading it. Any assist appreciated, Thanks!

[eqfan592]

24. It's only a matter of time.

Denying people the right to effectively defend themselves while on your property while simultaneously failing to ensure their safety is a nasty combination, one that is born out far too often without consequence. This sort of behavior is irrational and immoral.

And yes, this law will be at risk after the SC rules on incorporation, as well other such laws around the US. This isn't just my opinion, either. Take a look around on google and you'll find state lawmakers around the nation are preping for what to do when the inevitable lawsuits are filed. In Wisconsin, Milwaukee county's DA is recommending the state adopt concealed carry now in order to avoid the legal battle that is sure to come and that they are sure to lose.

And we'll be better for it.

[Arctic Dave]

39. It will be interesting if it does happen.

I think it will prove difficult to say that someone was harmed because they were not armed. Being armed is not a definitive action for not being harmed. The four cops in Washington are an example,

[eqfan592]

40. No, but then again the four cops in Washington were assassinated.

That's not your typical situation. They weren't just the targets of a robbery or in the store when it was being robbed. THEY were the targets, and in a situation like that it's going to be difficult to defend yourself even if you are armed (and on of the offers did manage to wound one of the attackers still).

But in a situation like at Virginia Tech, where the guy took his time going from student to student, there was a very strong chance that a CCW holder in the room or building could have put a swift end to the crime and saved a lot of lives. They were denied this chance due to the schools policy. The school also failed to take effective measures in insuring that their "no guns" policy was enforced, making for a "worst of both worlds" situation.

If you are going to deny somebody the right and ability to effectively defend themselves, then you must be willing to take on that burden yourself. If you are not willing, then you have no moral or ethical right to deny people this ability.

No, but then again the four cops in Washington were assassinated.

[Arctic Dave]

49. I'm thinking you are not exactly using the term assassinated in the right context

"An Assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure.
Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, personal public recognition, or mental illness.
Assassination (or targeted killing) may refer to the government-sanctioned killing of opponents or to targeted attacks on high-profile enemy combatants.<1>
In figurative language usage, the word "assassination" may also be used in colloquial speech as a hyperbole, as in the phrase "character assassination", meaning an attempt to impugn another's character, and thus kill ("assassinate") his reputation and credibility."

Were they murdered, yes; assassinated , no. They just happened to be unlucky enough to be there, they were not systematically target for who they are.

[eqfan592]

51. Indeed they were systematically targeted for who they are.

They were killed because they were cops. These guys weren't interested in just killing some random people, they were after cops. This would appear to be confirmed by the fact that one of the gunman was killed while attempting to ambush another police officer.

But even if you don't like the word, it doesn't change the fact that their lives were the target of the crime, not anything they had on their person, and in those circumstances, unless you happen to see the person in advance, the chances of you being able to react fast enough to save yourself are slim.

Ultimately, the main point is that this particular case is not a good "poster child" argument against concealed or open carry.

[paulsby]

80. no, they were assassinated

cops ARE public figures, and they were assassinated as best we can tell, solely because of the position they held as members of the executive branch of lakewood's city govt.

we don't normally hear of cop killings AS assassinatiions, but this one was.

if a guy kills a cop because he is trying to evade arrest, that's not an assassination

if he targets and kills a cop BECAUSE the guy is a cop, that's clearly an assasination

[OttavaKarhu]

100. Exactly correct. n/t

[Euromutt]

83. The Lakewood officer did emphatically not "happen to be unlucky enough to be there"

As far as anyone can tell, Clemmons walked into that Forza with the explicit intent of killing the four officers because they were police officers. He wasn't trying to rob the joint, or commit a mass murder (he didn't try grab the contents of the till or shoot anyone else), and let's be honest, when has a would-be robber or spree shooter ever walked into a location where there were no fewer than four cops present?

Clemmons deliberately targeted the four officers while they were together in one (non-secure) location and preoccupied working on their laptops prior to starting their shift. He was even trying for number five when he was killed: he left a stolen vehicle with the hood open and the engine running to attract the attention of a passing Seattle PD patrol officer, and then tried to sneak up on the driver's side of the patrol car while the cop was running the vehicle through his computer. Unfortunately for Clemmons, the cop spotted him approaching in the wing mirror, and reacted swiftly enough not only to prevent harm to himself, but to take down Clemmons as well.

But I'm sure the SPD officer could have stopped Clemmons without a gun, right?

[OttavaKarhu]

102. Clemmons announced he was going to kill police officers...

...and school children at a family Thanksgiving gathering.

There are seven people in custody who helped him engineer the crime and the getaway. Seven accomplices in assassination. And possibly more. (I'd include anyone at that Thanksgiving gathering who heard his comments. It's not like this guy had a lifelong record of kissing fluffy bunnies and farting rainbows. "Oh yeah, Relative X is a proven sociopath, so of course he threatens people, and that's OK!")

How Clemmons lured the cop over with the hood-up car...and then lurked in as the officer investigated in order to render assistance--ugh. When that was reported shortly after his apprehension, I felt nauseous. That is a level and degree of predation that is...beyond words to express how vile it is. For one thing it means that any officer who ever stops to render assistance for any of us who are law abiding must do so in a heightened and tense state. Guys like Clemmons break stuff for everyone, and somehow never get around to cleaning up after themselves.

"Unlucky enough to be there" had nothing to do with the murders of Ofcs. Renninger, Griswold, Owens, and Richards. No more than it did for Ofcs. Brenton and Sweeney in October. These people were targeted for assassination.

I truly fear for liberalism and progressivism if people "on my side" can no longer tell the difference between the utmost extreme of sociopathological behavior and "just one of those things that happen." Between these five murders and the Ft. Hood matter, I sense that there are also too many people with decision making power who are too appeasement and career and PC minded to hold the line against sociopaths.

[cabluedem]

60. Owning guns is NOT a civil right to begin with. nt

[PavePusher]

64. How odd. It says it right there in the Constitution.... n/t

[beevul]

68. I would assert...

That any college that gets so much as 1 red cent of taxpayer funded money from government...should lose any claim at being "private".

Kind of a parallel of groups that got bailout money.

[paulsby]

79. if it's a PUBLIC school

it doesn't have the same authority to infringe rights as a private school does.

i can't speak to colorado law, but IF colorado law recognizes right to carry as a civil right (like my state does) , no public college can infringe on it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armueller2001]

62. Umm... if you'll review the case Heller v. DC

you'll see the path the Supreme Court is likely to follow in the Chicago case... that individual governments cannot ban individual rights.

Are state and city bans on free speech constitutional? How about state and city bans against the fourth amendment?

[eqfan592]

63. Your last few posts on this thread....

.....really demonstrate a fundamental unwillingness to discuss this topic in a rational manner.

[PavePusher]

65. Got any actual factual support for that?

Or are you just making declarative statements to hear yourself talk?

[GreenStormCloud]

66. That's what this court case is all about.

If the 2nd gets incorporated, then city and state gun bans will be unconstitutional.

[beevul]

67. Lose again?

Your kind - the gun banner - had your day, that would be fifteen or so years ago.

You are the ones that are now losing. And losing. And losing some more.

You could bamboozle America before but in the internet age you lose.

Lose so bad that the amount of control over this issue that you have has been reduced to disabling comments on anti-gun websites.


And you have nobody to blame for it but yourselves.


Thats what you get for being unreasonable. You anti-gunners and the intellectually dishonest groups such as brady and vpc and csgv that represent you, you got pushy and declared your little culture war against the wrong people. You underestimated your enemy - an enemy you never had any chance of winning against in the first place - and in doing so placed yourselves in a no win scenario. What you are experiencing, is what happens when you take tens of millions of people and push them until they can't, wont, be pushed anymore any farther.



You made this bed, and now quite apropriately are going to be sleeping in it.

Look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back.

[Euromutt]

71. The administration of CSU does not have legislative power

And while, pending the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment may not be accepted as applying to governments other than the federal one, the administration of Colorado State University--being a state-run institution--is most definitely subject to the Colorado state constitution, of which Article II, Section 13 states:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question <...>

Admittedly, the Colorado supreme court has ruled that the right to bear arms in not absolute and "can be restricted by the state's valid exercise of its police power," but the authority to do so rests with the Colorado general assembly. It does emphatically not rest with the executive branch of government, and certainly not with the administration of CSU.

Did you sleep through every civics class? Or do you have a mental block that makes you unable to process how government works when it comes to firearms?

[Euromutt]

42. Don't think it vindicates the policy if they don't

Choice of which institution of tertiary education to attend depends on a great many factors, of which the school administration's belief that they are better able to judge the trustworthiness of a concealed carrier than the state-mandated licensing authority is only one, and a minor one at that.

[ManiacJoe]

6. Current events not withstanding....

Purposely disarming the Good Guys while purposely leaving the Bad Guys armed fails the logic test. However, it does make for quick and easy lip service regarding "safety", which is all that normally matters to the politicians.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. The final decision rests with Tony Frank. He hasn't released his decision yet.

The likelyhood is that he will go with the board of governors.

[Israfel4]

17. Which scenario would you like to be in

While someone is shooting people on a college campus

1. In a room with no way out and a person who has a CHL and firearm with them

or

2. In a room with other UNarmed people and police outside waiting for back-up.



Which one???

[beevul]

20. Did Helmke help you with that title...

or were you just dreaming?


Colorado did no such thing.


ONE university banned concealed carry, against the wishes of its DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED student governing body, which voted 21-3 in support of keeping CSU a conceal-and-carry campus.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=128141&catid=339

Democracy ain't so good when it goes against your biases, eh?

[eqfan592]

25. Thanks for clearing it up, beevul. :) (nt)

[eqfan592]

22. Seriously? What morons decided this was a good idea?

"Oh gee, THIS will stop any school shootings dead cold!" Seriously, these people are fucking stupid, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

[Euromutt]

28. The "Safety Committee," apparently

Whatever that is. If my own experiences in student governance are anything to go by, it consists of a couple of faculty members, a couple of a staff members, and a couple of students, selected primarily on their bothering to volunteer for the job.

[proteus_lives]

26. Idiots.

Gun-Free zones worked great for V. Tech huh?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

31. That's a disgusting, dishonest straw man zanne.

:nuke:

[GreenStormCloud]

32. It is a bit late, by several centuries, to uninvent guns. N/T

[aikoaiko]

36. You have imaginary gun nut fantasies.

[eqfan592]

37. Zanne, look at your arguments someday....

...then look at the sort of arguments freepers make in regards to health care.


You'll see a stark similarity.

[Euromutt]

41. Let's turn that around: "According to gun grabbers, thousands could be robbed, raped and killed..."

"... and as as long as it didn't happen with firearms that were originally purchased legally, that would be just dandy with them. They'd come up with a justification why it would be preferable to having the victims able to defend themselves. Sick people."

See how easy it is to turn emotive language around and sling it right back? I'd prefer these discussions not to get personally abusive, but I'm willing to give as good as I get.

[Euromutt]

46. Some clarification to my above post

I do not like the term the term "gun grabber" and I will at most use it ironically. I also do not believe (having been one myself) that gun control proponents are actually in favor of people becoming victims of violent crime.

So if any proponent of more restrictive gun control takes offense at the statement in quote marks in above post, understand that I did not intend it as a statement of my actual opinion, but rather, to illustrate how gratuitously offensive it is to paint proponents of private citizens' right to keep and bear (fire)arms as being callously unperturbed by innocents becoming the victim of unlawful firearm violence. All I'm asking for is that we keep the discussion civil, though that said, if anybody starts making personal aspersions, I'm more than prepared to respond in kind.

[eqfan592]

47. Well said.

I'm also a former gun control proponent, so I do see your point. Sometimes it's very easy to belittle the other side, both in your own mind and vocally (lord knows I fall into this trap more often than I'd like too). We must be careful to not dehumanize the other side and think of them as monsters, otherwise rational discourse will be impossible.

Well said as usual, Euromutt. :)

[paulsby]

81. i used to be pro gun control

i grew up mostly surrounded by liberals, adjacent to a liberal college campus. and i never even heard an articulate pro gun argument.

then, i joined the real world, worked as a firefighter and cop, and frankly, with the advent of the internet, i suddenly had fingertip access to all sorts of case law and law commentary

that changed my mind. intelligent discussion

[cabluedem]

44. Most of the gun goblins are paranoid nuts. The last ones who need a gun. nt

[Euromutt]

45. Truthiness in action

You don't actually have any evidence to support that belief, do you? It's just something you feel to be true, and that therefore is true, no supporting evidence required, and no amount of contrary evidence that could possibly change your mind.

[TPaine7]

53. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...

that our policy preferences should be enshrined in law, the Constitution notwithstanding."

[GreenStormCloud]

50. How do you explain the fact that CCW holders are ten times more law abiding than the general public.

Two states, FL & TX annually publish their data on CCW holders in their state. In both states, the CCW holders have shown themselves worthy of the trust that they have been given.

Also, legal gun ownership has gone up in the last twenty years, and crime has come down markedly. Would you care to explain that?

[OttavaKarhu]

70. Translation:

Nothing bad ever happens to anybody.

If something bad ever happens to somebody, they can talk their way out of it or run away.

If they can neither talk their way out of it or run away, obviously they did something wrong and being attacked is what they deserve.

Ergo queers, elders, women, atheists, racial and ethnic and cultural minorities, and people in wheelchairs or on canes deserve whatever they get at the hands of predators. Because everyone knows that these demographics aren't worth protecting using every tool in our power.

[Merchant Marine]

101. Most of the gun grabbers are ignorant fools. The last ones who need to push public policy. nt

[slackmaster]

30. But by not also requiring physical security measures to make sure people don't bring guns in

Such a declaration cannot possibly enhance the safety of people who work and learn there.

[aikoaiko]

35. As someone who works on a college campus, I look forward to being able to legally carry concealed.

But as of right now, its illegal in GA to do so without special written exemption from the law.


Fear mongering has won the day in Colorado.

[rd_kent]

38. Zanne, no such thing has happened and the local Sheriff say he will not enforce it.

ONE school passed a rule (not the entire state as your misleading headline implies), no guns on campus, against the wishes of the student council. The sheriff says he will not enforce it because A) its unconstitutional and B) He does not want to create a place where criminals can act with impunity.


What say you now?

Perhaps next time, if you link the article you are trying to misconstrue, you can save yourself from another big FAIL.

It works like this, you post the link, everyone can read it, then we comments.

Here is an example:

http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2009/12/03/News/Ascsu.County.Wont.Enforce.Gun.Ban-3844240.shtml