Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
No. Once again, property rights are.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
No. Once again, property rights are.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest - Press Release & T-Shirt Information
- Thread starter Douva
- Start date
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Wynder wrote:
If you want to change the subject, I understand why.
I agree that the owner of private property has the right to decide what they will allow to go on there.
Wynder wrote:
Well, the words I quoted from your post said nothing of property rights. I was addressing your statement that you were glad for Deleware's training/testing requirements for gun permits.
If you want to change the subject, I understand why.
I agree that the owner of private property has the right to decide what they will allow to go on there.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Aww, you can't? That's because I never said it. In fact, I said I found it inconvenience.
However, in this case, you're wrong.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I'd love to see that quote -- why don't you go and quote it for me?
Aww, you can't? That's because I never said it. In fact, I said I found it inconvenience. However, in this case, you're wrong.
In this case, Second Amendment rights and property rights go hand in hand. If the Board of Directors and Administration don't feel comfortable, screw the gun owners, they can't have guns on our property. And this is why I think the folks at GMU have got the right idea -- compromise to get the foot in the door and work the rest of the way in once the mindset has adjusted.
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
Since you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you what you said that sparked this discussion between the two of us:
Wynder wrote:
I have a right to be armed. But this means my neighbor has the right to be armed too. I can't distrust him because he's armed. Nor can I pretend to know how responsible he is with apples based on how responsible he is with oranges. For you to distrust others because they're armed, you're perpetuating the misguided belief that others may mistrust you solely because you're armed. Which begets the "only criminals have guns" hysteria that plagues us all.
- all guns are loaded
- keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
- never put your finger in the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot
I'm not certified either, but how certified do you have to be to impart "look both ways before entering the street?" You can feel free to pass along my safety points above. The benefit of being at the range is that there you can supervise their sight picture, grip, followthrough, and breathing. Which doesn't begin to address the fact that I've already covered that pulling the trigger represents 1% of how armament provides a safer environment. Points which by the way you've not attempted to rebut because your concern doesn't appear to be a safe environment as much as it appears maintaining your role of lord of the classroom.
Since you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you what you said that sparked this discussion between the two of us:
Wynder wrote:
This--and only this--has been what I've been discussing with you since the onset of my input.
We all have the same 24 hours of each day and are faced with decisions on how to spend that time based on our priorities. That you insist they be trained but are unwilling to put your time where your mouth is suggests that you're more interested in maintaining YOUR sole possession of a firearm than the safety of your classroom.
I have a right to be armed. But this means my neighbor has the right to be armed too. I can't distrust him because he's armed. Nor can I pretend to know how responsible he is with apples based on how responsible he is with oranges. For you to distrust others because they're armed, you're perpetuating the misguided belief that others may mistrust you solely because you're armed. Which begets the "only criminals have guns" hysteria that plagues us all.
Read the quote again. YOU want others to meet YOUR requirements before YOU will be comfortable with them being armed in YOUR classroom. None of this has anything to do with school policy as I have been addressing YOUR words from square one. Also, say you teach accounting. For you to teach your students about supply and demand isn't you inflicting your will upon them. Just as teaching them firearm safety would not be. Telling them that YOU will not be comfortable with them in YOUR classroom until they meet YOUR guidelines, is.
You didn't seem to mind your lack of qualifications when you made your original statement that training is the keystone to campus armament. Here, I'll help:
- all guns are loaded
- keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
- never put your finger in the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot
I'm not certified either, but how certified do you have to be to impart "look both ways before entering the street?" You can feel free to pass along my safety points above. The benefit of being at the range is that there you can supervise their sight picture, grip, followthrough, and breathing. Which doesn't begin to address the fact that I've already covered that pulling the trigger represents 1% of how armament provides a safer environment. Points which by the way you've not attempted to rebut because your concern doesn't appear to be a safe environment as much as it appears maintaining your role of lord of the classroom.
A court refusing to uphold its obligation to our nation's Constitution and its people's rights does not make it NOT an infringement. You don't need a license to buy lettuce. You don't need a license to buy a knife. You don't need a license to cut that lettuce with that knife. You don't need training to make a salad with the same. THAT is not infringement. And you know what? If you use that knife to intimidate or harm one of your countrymen, you will reap the consequences just the same. Which is exactly WHY "...shall not be infringed" is so appropriate. Punish the criminals. Not me. Not your students.
If it REALLY was about safety, you'd make the effort to ensure it over the effort to control others. If it really was about safety, you would address my demonstration that even all your students open carrying because they have a right to life despite not shelling out for formal training makes your classroom safer than advertising to the world that you are a victim disarmament zone. Instead, like most controlists, you tout the word "safety" as if it empowers you to decide how others will live their life.
Actually, the people who subscribe to training equals safety are the ones who are misinformed on the subject. I've already demonstrated how even no training would make your campus safer whether you like it or not. Maybe address that instead of just repeating yourself and upping the ante by tossing in depricating name-calling.
I have yet to speak of property rights, sir. Stop hiding and take responsiblity for your words. The two of us talking together presents an opportunity for both of us to grow as individuals. Also, you don't want to get me started on the "image" tangent. That's another tactic the anti's use to divide and conquer us. Not unlike the tactics of theirs I've already pointed out that you have mirrored, since you just claimed that not doing so is important to you.
How about this: Anybody not shooting the place up is cool to be armed. That's what the Constitution says. Drop YOUR self-righteous drive to control others and realize that a classroom full of untraited firearm carrier makes the place safer than advertising your classroom to be a criminal protection zone. If you want there to be more training, feel free to take it upon yourself to pitch for the greater good of your classroom, your school, your community, and your nation. Do NOT feel free to inflict your will upon others as if you belong to some privileged class.
Yes because the money they've spent on checking out whackjobs before allowing them to mow down the ripened herd has been so effective, right? IT'S NOT ABOUT SHOOTING!!! If ONE student was seen lawfully and within the school's regulations walking into a school with an UNLOADED firearm, the would be attacker that witnessed it would pick a different school. The shootings you read about that have left you in fear of your own students didn't take place at military bases or police stations. They took place where the assailants knew they would not be met with any resistance.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Going to try to make this as civil as I can...
I WANT GUNS IN MY COLLEGE.
Getting them in there is another issue, and that issue is making the decision makers feel comfortable and safe enough to make that change, as it's their right on their property.
Now, looking at it from your end, if the world were reversed and firearms were allowed on campus and I had armed students in my class then, as a matter of recreation and common interests, I'd go out to the range with them as it'd probably only be 2-4 students at most. When I spoke before, (the tens or twenties of students) was in reference to the college as a whole. I think we were both misreading on that part.
And, for the record, I teach computer science.
Like it or not, the administration has control of people on campus. On their property, I must follow the rules or be fired. The student must follow the rules or be expelled. The visitor must follow the rules under penalty of trespass. If you think that the policy makers would allow guns on campus one day with absolutely no stipulations or requirements, that's just not going to happen. In order to get the ball rolling, an entry point needs to be made.
Who is going to use that weapon more safely?
) still needs to be accountable for what happens on campus, as a students' actions directly impacts current and future policy.
If someone, for some reason, unholstered their weapon improperly and there was a ND, that's the end of guns on campus. Period. I could almost say that with no uncertainty. Let me say that, I enjoy the idea of people having that practical training because, in having students and staff and faculty who properly handle firearms (i.e. less chance of ND's) keeping the guns on campus becomes a stronger reality.
I have to stick with looking at the statistics and say that if there's a risk of loosing guns due to unsafe handling on a students or staffs part, I'd rather choose the evil of requiring the training than not.
Hey, I'll be honest, if I thought that they'd allow a student open carry on campus with no stipulations, I'd be the first one up in the President's Office. However, I know that's not going to happen without insurmountable stipulations being made.
Going to try to make this as civil as I can...
You're assuming that responsibility of training people should be left to the people from whom gun owners want permission from. It's my opinion that it's the responsibility of the gun owner to take safety training at his own cost of money and time... Not mine. And if I haven't made it abundantly clear:
I WANT GUNS IN MY COLLEGE.
Getting them in there is another issue, and that issue is making the decision makers feel comfortable and safe enough to make that change, as it's their right on their property.
In all honestly, I think you read too much into that, but let me clarify: "If I were a school administrator and it were up to me to effect a change in the college policy..." in order to put the minds of the Board at ease, I would offer them that as a peace of mind. I've been staff longer than I've been faculty, so when I speak, I'm speaking of the college as a whole.
Now, looking at it from your end, if the world were reversed and firearms were allowed on campus and I had armed students in my class then, as a matter of recreation and common interests, I'd go out to the range with them as it'd probably only be 2-4 students at most. When I spoke before, (the tens or twenties of students) was in reference to the college as a whole. I think we were both misreading on that part.
And, for the record, I teach computer science.
You missed #4: Know your target and what lies behind it. And there's a difference between telling someone and putting that into practice and making it memory reflex, then there's the legal aspect of the course -- in addition to not being an instructor, I'm also not a lawyer. Taking a class from a certified instructor would be infinitely better than taking a few points from the ol' teach.
My whole issue with safety is a person who has never owned, nor fired a pistol buying a gun on day one and open carrying it on day two. Is it his right? Damn skippy it is. Do I want to be around him? Hell no.
Like it or not, the administration has control of people on campus. On their property, I must follow the rules or be fired. The student must follow the rules or be expelled. The visitor must follow the rules under penalty of trespass. If you think that the policy makers would allow guns on campus one day with absolutely no stipulations or requirements, that's just not going to happen. In order to get the ball rolling, an entry point needs to be made.
So, then answer this. Bob and Sally go out and buy a handgun on the same day. Neither of them has owned or fired a gun before. Sally goes out and drops a few dollars and takes a ten hour safety course that includes a couple hundred rounds of live fire exercises, learning the local law, holster work, safely handle the weapon and how to maintain their weapon.
Who is going to use that weapon more safely?
Let's look at statistics here and realize that, while quite prevalent in the news, school shootings aren't anywhere near as common as other gun-related crimes. A school administration (see, I'm trying to clarify myself here
) still needs to be accountable for what happens on campus, as a students' actions directly impacts current and future policy.If someone, for some reason, unholstered their weapon improperly and there was a ND, that's the end of guns on campus. Period. I could almost say that with no uncertainty. Let me say that, I enjoy the idea of people having that practical training because, in having students and staff and faculty who properly handle firearms (i.e. less chance of ND's) keeping the guns on campus becomes a stronger reality.
I'm very aware of where they took place, considering one happened in early September about 20 miles from our northern campus and one more recently at Delaware state which is about 3 miles from one of our Southern campus.
I have to stick with looking at the statistics and say that if there's a risk of loosing guns due to unsafe handling on a students or staffs part, I'd rather choose the evil of requiring the training than not.
Hey, I'll be honest, if I thought that they'd allow a student open carry on campus with no stipulations, I'd be the first one up in the President's Office. However, I know that's not going to happen without insurmountable stipulations being made.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Wynder wrote:
If you think I misquoted you, just click here and scroll down; your first post was the 6th post in this thread.
I hope this helps you (and everybody else) find the words you wrote (unless after being called out here you choose to go back and edit your post).
Now, you can:
Wynder wrote:
Here you go:I'd love to see that quote -- why don't you go and quote it for me?
Wynder wrote:
(Posted: Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 05:37 pm)
If you think I misquoted you, just click here and scroll down; your first post was the 6th post in this thread.
I hope this helps you (and everybody else) find the words you wrote (unless after being called out here you choose to go back and edit your post).
Now, you can:
- chill out and choose to explain your words,
- continue your hostility and keep denying what you wrote, or
- ignore me in hopes nobody notices.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Once again, where does it say that I'm glad for the training requirement? I said that I'd enjoy knowing they'd had the training.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Once again, where does it say that I'm glad for the training requirement? I said that I'd enjoy knowing they'd had the training.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
I won't be around this evening the continue this pleasant discussion as I'm taking my four-year old to her aunts for the weekend, but let me try to clear up my position in a few sentances. I'll accept that some of my posts were ill-worded in the respects that I was speaking of the college in general and didn't make that fully clear if we can all agree we've been passive-aggressive, aggressive-aggressive and there have been misinterpretations on both sides of the argument.
Knowing That:
I won't be around this evening the continue this pleasant discussion as I'm taking my four-year old to her aunts for the weekend, but let me try to clear up my position in a few sentances. I'll accept that some of my posts were ill-worded in the respects that I was speaking of the college in general and didn't make that fully clear if we can all agree we've been passive-aggressive, aggressive-aggressive and there have been misinterpretations on both sides of the argument.
Knowing That:
- College policy makers wouldn't allow guns on campus without stipulations or safety considerations; and
- The chance of a ND is statistically higher with someone who has not had remedial safety training and is a new gun owner; and
- Knowing that a ND would cause the immediate and irrevokable ban of guns on campus forever more...
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Wynder wrote:
The inference which can be drawn here is that you would experience displeasure if the training requirement was not there.
I think you may be suffering from a condition common to teachers and LEOs. "Hardheadedness" is a condition where it is extremely psychologically painful to be shown and/or to admit that you were wrong. Instead of owning up to a mistake, those with this condition often project, rationalize, or deny the mistake.
I don't accept your proposal that you're simply being misunderstood. Your words are clear.
You've also made it clear you are not willing to own up to your statement and have conversation based in facts and logic.
Wynder wrote:
"Gladness" is equivalent to "enjoyment." Both words entail experiencing psychological pleasure.
The inference which can be drawn here is that you would experience displeasure if the training requirement was not there.
I don't agree.
I think you may be suffering from a condition common to teachers and LEOs. "Hardheadedness" is a condition where it is extremely psychologically painful to be shown and/or to admit that you were wrong. Instead of owning up to a mistake, those with this condition often project, rationalize, or deny the mistake.
I don't accept your proposal that you're simply being misunderstood. Your words are clear.
You've also made it clear you are not willing to own up to your statement and have conversation based in facts and logic.
vmathis12019
State Researcher
imported post
Well, this is in response to the idea that OC as well as CC should be allowed.
I see the granting of CCW rights to permit holders as a monumental leap in the right direction. As a college student with a CCW permit, I would love to be able to at the very least CC without the fear of being shot by a rent-a-cop University PD officer.
That said, I think the idea of OC on campus is just too much. It won't work. Every university campus around the country has a very large (probably majority) liberal population as well as hundreds of students from other countries. The fact that the displaying of a weapon simply honestly makes people uncomfortable, I think, is a reasonable pedogogical concern and should therefor be considered.
I would love nothing more than to OC on campus, but unfortunately, it's just not feasible. Just being allowed to have my weapon at all is really the key, and whether I have to hide it or not, it's presence is what makes me safe, not its visibility.
Just my .02.
Well, this is in response to the idea that OC as well as CC should be allowed.
I see the granting of CCW rights to permit holders as a monumental leap in the right direction. As a college student with a CCW permit, I would love to be able to at the very least CC without the fear of being shot by a rent-a-cop University PD officer.
That said, I think the idea of OC on campus is just too much. It won't work. Every university campus around the country has a very large (probably majority) liberal population as well as hundreds of students from other countries. The fact that the displaying of a weapon simply honestly makes people uncomfortable, I think, is a reasonable pedogogical concern and should therefor be considered.
I would love nothing more than to OC on campus, but unfortunately, it's just not feasible. Just being allowed to have my weapon at all is really the key, and whether I have to hide it or not, it's presence is what makes me safe, not its visibility.
Just my .02.
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
@vmathis: You're right that being able to be legally armed is the important thing. However, I disagree with the rest of what you said and would like to share my reasons with you. To concede to the liberals that have taken over higher education simply because they are already there and numerous is not American. Our forefathers bled for this freedom. All we have to do is uphold it. Now should the university allow concealed carry only and you, grateful that you can now provide for your own safety while you're preparing for your future, choose to comply, that's your choice. But don't let that American spirit die inside you. Least of all for the reason that the very people that damage us the most from within are already there. There is no difference between open and concealed carry. They each have tactical pro's and con's associated with them, but neither is more "appropriate" for public discourse. Several nights ago, I had a local township policeman SCOLD me because McDonald's is a "family establishment." Earlier in the day, I had a grocery store cashier tell me that he "wasn't sure if you could carry in a grocery store." When you play by the "appropriate" mentality, we're only left with being able to have our guns at the range. It's inappropriate for the law-abiding to be disarmed.
Wynder wrote:
Remember how you several times tried to switch this to a property rights debate? Why wouldn't you apply that here as well? As an American citizen, as a gun owner, as a member of staff at the university in question, you should push for a full institution of citizens' rights. Particularly for your younger students who are partaking of higher education as an introduction into "the real world." If the university then decides to compromise, hey, property rights. At least then you can honestly say you did your part for the rights of your students instead of accepting defeat before you're defeated.
@vmathis: You're right that being able to be legally armed is the important thing. However, I disagree with the rest of what you said and would like to share my reasons with you. To concede to the liberals that have taken over higher education simply because they are already there and numerous is not American. Our forefathers bled for this freedom. All we have to do is uphold it. Now should the university allow concealed carry only and you, grateful that you can now provide for your own safety while you're preparing for your future, choose to comply, that's your choice. But don't let that American spirit die inside you. Least of all for the reason that the very people that damage us the most from within are already there. There is no difference between open and concealed carry. They each have tactical pro's and con's associated with them, but neither is more "appropriate" for public discourse. Several nights ago, I had a local township policeman SCOLD me because McDonald's is a "family establishment." Earlier in the day, I had a grocery store cashier tell me that he "wasn't sure if you could carry in a grocery store." When you play by the "appropriate" mentality, we're only left with being able to have our guns at the range. It's inappropriate for the law-abiding to be disarmed.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
vmathis12019 wrote:
Also, I disagree that foreign students would be especially offended. Maybe if they're from some Western European country that bans people from thinking about guns, they will be. But take a student from Bosnia, or Rwanda, or Iraq and I'm sure he or she will recognize the necessity of guns to self protection. Then again, watching your family or a friend's family getting raped and murdered by a "democratic" quasi-government will do that to you.
On an entirely different issue, I'd say that banning unlicensed open carry on campus would be a much larger safety risk than allowing it. This is my line of thinking: Unlicensed open carry is legal elsewhere in the state, so anyone in their right mind will take advantage of open car carry for everywhere but the college. So, when a person arrives at the school, the person must then disarm. Unholster the handgun, probably unload it, lock it in a car safe. There is going to be much more of a chance of a negligent discharge as many people handle their guns at least twice a day than in the extremely unlikely event that there would be an incident requiring students to draw. At least with allowing unlicensed OC on campus, students can keep their guns holstered. I'm fully comfortable being in close proximity to a person carrying a loaded handgun who has never shot one before. I'm not quite so comfortable when that person is holstering and unholstering, loading and unloading. Quite simply, is someone more likely to accidentally pull the trigger when it's in a holster or when they're frequently taking it out of a holster? Not to mention the "scare factor" in seeing people in a parking lot unholstering their guns. And the "getting gunned down by campus rent-a-cops" factor.
vmathis12019 wrote:
First, you're not talking about true liberals here, you're talking about Democrats. There is a very large Democrat majority. Real liberals would support unlicensed open carry of handguns because the people are expressing a human right to self defense, similar to the individual rights promoted by liberals of freedom of speech, consensual sex, personal drug use, etc. However, most "progressive" college students think that "Democrat" means liberal, and they are wrong. The two political parties are a nonsensical mix of conservative and liberal issues thrown together over the last few hundred years.
Also, I disagree that foreign students would be especially offended. Maybe if they're from some Western European country that bans people from thinking about guns, they will be. But take a student from Bosnia, or Rwanda, or Iraq and I'm sure he or she will recognize the necessity of guns to self protection. Then again, watching your family or a friend's family getting raped and murdered by a "democratic" quasi-government will do that to you.
On an entirely different issue, I'd say that banning unlicensed open carry on campus would be a much larger safety risk than allowing it. This is my line of thinking: Unlicensed open carry is legal elsewhere in the state, so anyone in their right mind will take advantage of open car carry for everywhere but the college. So, when a person arrives at the school, the person must then disarm. Unholster the handgun, probably unload it, lock it in a car safe. There is going to be much more of a chance of a negligent discharge as many people handle their guns at least twice a day than in the extremely unlikely event that there would be an incident requiring students to draw. At least with allowing unlicensed OC on campus, students can keep their guns holstered. I'm fully comfortable being in close proximity to a person carrying a loaded handgun who has never shot one before. I'm not quite so comfortable when that person is holstering and unholstering, loading and unloading. Quite simply, is someone more likely to accidentally pull the trigger when it's in a holster or when they're frequently taking it out of a holster? Not to mention the "scare factor" in seeing people in a parking lot unholstering their guns. And the "getting gunned down by campus rent-a-cops" factor.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I'd enjoy knowing they had the training. The fact that I'd enjoy having the training and the fact that the training is a part of the CCDW class are two completely separate items. That's like going to McDonalds, seeing a value meal with the shake and saying, "I sure would enjoy that shake." One does not go with the other, though I can see where someone might draw an inference.
You've certainly been passive aggressive.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I'd enjoy knowing they had the training. The fact that I'd enjoy having the training and the fact that the training is a part of the CCDW class are two completely separate items. That's like going to McDonalds, seeing a value meal with the shake and saying, "I sure would enjoy that shake." One does not go with the other, though I can see where someone might draw an inference.
You've certainly been passive aggressive.
No, I find it painful that people are trying to tell me what I'm thinking when they have no idea.
You're the one who's 'drawing inferences'.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
For the record, I honestly beleive the two issues are hand in hand; however, I've stated before in other threads, I'll restate it here that I'm not willing to take that leap yet. I curtail my open carry to safe locations and I don't plan on rocking the boat at work because I have a wife and two kids that I need to support and can't risk my financial security for my idealogies... yet. Perhaps once the kids are out of college and on their own, I'd be more actively able to persue something along those lines, but don't think I seriously haven't considered it.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to putting these scenarios in a real-life context as open carry in my state is practically unheard of.
Hadn't thought of that.
I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to putting these scenarios in a real-life context as open carry in my state is practically unheard of.
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
Nobody said a word about rocking the boat. Well, except maybe for you, who has spoken as if you'd tip the boat upside down because you forsee somebody else doing it. No, what I said was merely being vocal. Your school might ask you your thoughts on this subject and your posts have indicated that you would tell them that you're only okay with concealed carry because it infers training because you believe that's adequate compromise. I'm saying free your mind and approach it as a level-headed adutl with the safety of his students in mind by simply stating that the US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms and you don't feel that their safety should at all be compromised just because they'd like to learn.
Compromising your students will not make them safe.
Nobody said a word about rocking the boat. Well, except maybe for you, who has spoken as if you'd tip the boat upside down because you forsee somebody else doing it. No, what I said was merely being vocal. Your school might ask you your thoughts on this subject and your posts have indicated that you would tell them that you're only okay with concealed carry because it infers training because you believe that's adequate compromise. I'm saying free your mind and approach it as a level-headed adutl with the safety of his students in mind by simply stating that the US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms and you don't feel that their safety should at all be compromised just because they'd like to learn.
Compromising your students will not make them safe.
vmathis12019
State Researcher
imported post
Demarest wrote:
The problem I see in taking such a mentality of unwillingness for compromise kind of undermines the democratic spirit at work here in the first place. There are people, lawful citizens of this country, who don't want guns ANYWHERE, especially schools. Unfortunately, for now, (with the exception of Utah)they have succeeded in either making it illegal, or against school policies to have our guns at all. I can assure you that, whileWE see no difference between OC and CC, they do. They don't understand the logic, or the tactics behind either, but many will concede that it not being visible in a classroom is more agreeable than openly carrying.
What they are going to cite are what have been termed "pedogogical concerns." We must be aware of things that hinder the learning processes of students, especially those who are shelling out thousands of dollars to learn. This is the reason why we can regulate the "rights" against search and siezure in public schools,why school newspapers must be approved, and why guns aren't allowed on college campusesin the first place.
The idea that guns make these people uncomfortable in, say, a McDonald's, is irrelevant. They don't have to be able to focus on their hamburger as intently as they do a lecture on Karl Marx's influences on the Structural school of political violence. If people are uncomfortable in classrooms because of guns being openly displayed, they will lose concentration, thus hindering their learning abilities. This is not fair to them, much like our current status of complete disarmament is unfair to us.
Again, let me reiterate that I am a staunch proponent of the nationwide legalization of the open carry of firearms. If such a situation ever existed, I am sure that it would bea much lesserissue to the normative values of society. However, as most of us who have OCed can attest to, right now, such reservations do exist among the public. While I don't give a good rodent's rump how my firearm makes you feel in a restaurant, or in wal mart, I can't in all good consciousness intentionally break someone's concentration in a class room, especially when a simple alteration of my wardrobe or method of carry could make it as if the firearm weren't even there to the others, and continue to comfort and protect me.
Again, I am in total agreement that carrying a firearm in any method should be legal anywhere. However, Ibelieve that being an absolutist will get you nowhere. If the legislators will say I can do it concealed, I will do it concealed. If they say it doesn't matter how I do it, then I will do it both OC and CC. It is a matter of protecting yourself, while at the same time not getting thrown in jail, or causing unnecessary disruption to individuals who are trying to learn.
I don't perceive my beliefs to be a concession to the liberal anti-gun crowd. I see my rabid acceptance of a legislation that would allow students to carry handguns in ANY fashion a reach for a foothold of my own. We all know, that unless we plan to form a revolution, change ain't gonna happen over night. It takes time, and baby steps, and CCing on college campuses is a baby step that I would love to see taken.
Demarest wrote:
The problem I see in taking such a mentality of unwillingness for compromise kind of undermines the democratic spirit at work here in the first place. There are people, lawful citizens of this country, who don't want guns ANYWHERE, especially schools. Unfortunately, for now, (with the exception of Utah)they have succeeded in either making it illegal, or against school policies to have our guns at all. I can assure you that, whileWE see no difference between OC and CC, they do. They don't understand the logic, or the tactics behind either, but many will concede that it not being visible in a classroom is more agreeable than openly carrying.
What they are going to cite are what have been termed "pedogogical concerns." We must be aware of things that hinder the learning processes of students, especially those who are shelling out thousands of dollars to learn. This is the reason why we can regulate the "rights" against search and siezure in public schools,why school newspapers must be approved, and why guns aren't allowed on college campusesin the first place.
The idea that guns make these people uncomfortable in, say, a McDonald's, is irrelevant. They don't have to be able to focus on their hamburger as intently as they do a lecture on Karl Marx's influences on the Structural school of political violence. If people are uncomfortable in classrooms because of guns being openly displayed, they will lose concentration, thus hindering their learning abilities. This is not fair to them, much like our current status of complete disarmament is unfair to us.
Again, let me reiterate that I am a staunch proponent of the nationwide legalization of the open carry of firearms. If such a situation ever existed, I am sure that it would bea much lesserissue to the normative values of society. However, as most of us who have OCed can attest to, right now, such reservations do exist among the public. While I don't give a good rodent's rump how my firearm makes you feel in a restaurant, or in wal mart, I can't in all good consciousness intentionally break someone's concentration in a class room, especially when a simple alteration of my wardrobe or method of carry could make it as if the firearm weren't even there to the others, and continue to comfort and protect me.
Again, I am in total agreement that carrying a firearm in any method should be legal anywhere. However, Ibelieve that being an absolutist will get you nowhere. If the legislators will say I can do it concealed, I will do it concealed. If they say it doesn't matter how I do it, then I will do it both OC and CC. It is a matter of protecting yourself, while at the same time not getting thrown in jail, or causing unnecessary disruption to individuals who are trying to learn.
I don't perceive my beliefs to be a concession to the liberal anti-gun crowd. I see my rabid acceptance of a legislation that would allow students to carry handguns in ANY fashion a reach for a foothold of my own. We all know, that unless we plan to form a revolution, change ain't gonna happen over night. It takes time, and baby steps, and CCing on college campuses is a baby step that I would love to see taken.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
vmathis12019 wrote:
And if it were just a matter of "alteration of my wardrobe", that would be one thing. But except for Alaska and Vermont, one needs a permit to carry concealed. So, the only way to carry without a presumably anti-gun government approving one's priviledge to exercise one's right is through open carry. Not to mention the tactical advantage of not having to rifle (no pun intended) through one's clothing to find said handgun. And not to mention those who have a handgun so big that it can't be concealed without printing. Ask me: I have a .44 magnum revolver (7.5" barrel) that I use for hunting, and I don't really have the spare several hundred dollars laying around to buy a less powerful, but smaller handgun.
vmathis12019 wrote:
That is complete and utter bullshit. Sorry... but how is a firearm supposed to break anyone's concentration more than a unique wardrobe or hairstyle? Once again, college classrooms are meant to be places of learning, not prejudice.
And if it were just a matter of "alteration of my wardrobe", that would be one thing. But except for Alaska and Vermont, one needs a permit to carry concealed. So, the only way to carry without a presumably anti-gun government approving one's priviledge to exercise one's right is through open carry. Not to mention the tactical advantage of not having to rifle (no pun intended) through one's clothing to find said handgun. And not to mention those who have a handgun so big that it can't be concealed without printing. Ask me: I have a .44 magnum revolver (7.5" barrel) that I use for hunting, and I don't really have the spare several hundred dollars laying around to buy a less powerful, but smaller handgun.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Demarest wrote:
I honestly don't know what the culture is like in your part of the US, but we're certainly a *very* blue state, especially in the northern county and seeing guns on people, outside of law enforcement, is unheard of. So, being vocal would be rocking the boat, unless the campus administration came to its staff about initiating this change which, in light of the Delaware State University and Goldey-Beacom College shootings (the two shootings which happened here in Delaware within 3 weeks of each other), they're probably going to be more restrictive than ever about it.
Once again, and I've stated this several times, I would suggest as a compromise that students would be permitted to carry any way they like if they had recieved their CCDW permit, much like the folks over at GMU. That's what I'd be willing tofight for if I was presented with a chance to change the college environment.
Demarest wrote:
I honestly don't know what the culture is like in your part of the US, but we're certainly a *very* blue state, especially in the northern county and seeing guns on people, outside of law enforcement, is unheard of. So, being vocal would be rocking the boat, unless the campus administration came to its staff about initiating this change which, in light of the Delaware State University and Goldey-Beacom College shootings (the two shootings which happened here in Delaware within 3 weeks of each other), they're probably going to be more restrictive than ever about it.
Once again, and I've stated this several times, I would suggest as a compromise that students would be permitted to carry any way they like if they had recieved their CCDW permit, much like the folks over at GMU. That's what I'd be willing tofight for if I was presented with a chance to change the college environment.
Students are there several hours a day for a very limited part of their lives. I'm there every day, up to 14 hours sometimes for a significant part of my life -- I'm more at risk than the students to experience any type of violent event and I'm willing to put myself in this situation in order to get some kind of compromise to get SOME guns on campus.
SIGguy229
Regular Member
imported post
OK...does a STATE university enjoy PRIVATE property rights? We should probably mull over that a while. Does a state, taxpayer-funded university enjoy private property rights? (yes/no) Should they? (justify)
If the university provides resources to the public, (a la, a public library or athletic fields, classrooms, etc)--is it really private property?
The STATE does not have RIGHTS--neither does any of its' branches. Only people have rights....
OK...does a STATE university enjoy PRIVATE property rights? We should probably mull over that a while. Does a state, taxpayer-funded university enjoy private property rights? (yes/no) Should they? (justify)
If the university provides resources to the public, (a la, a public library or athletic fields, classrooms, etc)--is it really private property?
The STATE does not have RIGHTS--neither does any of its' branches. Only people have rights....