Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

JDriver1.8t wrote:

NCSU chapter of SCCC is pro-open carry, just not on campus.


We meet at a pizza place beside campus and most of us OC at the meetings.

Click to expand...

One giant step at a time is probably all we can hope for right now. Getting the foot and shoulder in the door with CC on campus for those not allowed to do so presently would IMO be an excellent beginning.

BTW - good show OCing at your meetings.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

As of tonight, I am now the State Director for North Carolina. :celebrate

No more being argumentative on the internet for me.

As you said, one step at a time.

For full availability, I am MaximaDrvr on Glocktalk.

imported post

I've found no evidence of this on the SCCC website. In fact, the SCCC website is about the most lame thing I've seen in recent times.

It would appear that the SCCC not only does not have an "official" position on OC, they don't have much movement or activity in ANY regard as far as legally carried weapons on campus.

As a college student (an old one!) that lives within 1 block of a campus, I am a proponent / advocate of individuals carrying weapons on campuses. However, for reasons of sensibility I'm ALSO an advocate of limiting WHO can carry on campus.

There will be some here who disagree with that, of course. However, the "Hey, I just bought a gun, so I'm packing on campus!" concept is not conducive to increasing the safety level of all on that campus, IMO.

IMO, there should be a common sense approach, and additional criteria (above that needed in Indiana to obtain a CCW) in order to CC on a college campus, due to the nature, the layout, and the congest prevalent on campuses.

The means that ANY law-abiding citizen SHOULD be allowed to CC on campus, IF they can demonstrate a high proficiency with their chosen CC weapon, proficiency of gun retention, a high level of understanding and proficiencyof shoot / don't shoot / tactical shooting scenarios, a high understanding of the laws surrounding these issues, etc., for safety reasons.

I'm much less comfortable with OC on campuses UNLESS the OC individual can demonstrate additional proficiency above and beyond the level for CC. For instance, and increased level of proficiency at weapons retention.

This will infuriate those "ANYONE should be able to pack heat, it's our RIGHT!" types, but those are my personal thoughts. If you can't handle your chosen, and demonstrate a high ability to handle your weapon, I would disagree with your carrying a weapon in such a congested scenario.

I for one, am willing to subject myself to the stringent training, and demonstrate the competency needed, in order to CC on campus. If someone else is unwilling to do so, I have to have serious doubts as to their REAL motivation behind wanting to pack a piece.

Just my thoughts.

imported post

JB-Indiana I understand your thinking and reasoning. The flaw is that if you apply this to other crowded, densely populated areas i.e. large cities, shopping malls at Christmas etc. you create more sheep and lambs for the wolves to no benefit.

Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves? Why should anyone fear a defensive tool on the person of an honest citizen? While you do not directly say so, your words would indicate a fear of what might happen if honest citizens were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to legally carry on campus.

BTW - this is exactly the condition that exists 12" off campus in majority of our nation and is the state law on campuses in one state. Guess what - no OK Corrals in any of these places.

Trust the honest citizen to be just that. Do not project your fears of what you imagine might be in order to restrict others. It just doesn't happen as you imply.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

JB-Indiana I understand your thinking and reasoning. The flaw is that if you apply this to other crowded, densely populated areas i.e. large cities, shopping malls at Christmas etc. you create more sheep and lambs for the wolves to no benefit.

Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves? Why should anyone fear a defensive tool on the person of an honest citizen? While you do not directly say so, your words would indicate a fear of what might happen if honest citizens were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to legally carry on campus.

BTW - this is exactly the condition that exists 12" off campus in majority of our nation and is the state law on campuses in one state. Guess what - no OK Corrals in any of these places.

Trust the honest citizen to be just that. Do not project your fears of what you imagine might be in order to restrict others. It just doesn't happen as you imply.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I understand, and respect your thinking as well. I won't "argue" with you, since we're on the same side of the issue. But I would like to respond to an item or two.

Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves?

If you'd prefer a one word answer, Yes. However, the wording of your question is somewhat "loaded", pardon the pun.

The fact of the matter is that if ANYONE chooses to arm themselves and carry a weapon in a public area, campus or otherwise, they have the SOLE duty and responsibility to be proficient with that weapon, period. In my not-so-humble (in this instance) opinion.

I'll be the first person here to proffer that, generally speaking, a citizen of this country has the right to keep and bear arms. But NOT just any citizen, as has been well established. Felons, for example, are prohibited. So are individuals that are found, through a specific process diagnosed by specific, credentialed individuals, to be mentally deficient / incapacitated. So there ARE limitiations we as a society have come to agree to "EVERY" citizen having the RKBA.

Same thing with the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. Despite the claim that comes about every now and then, we can NOT just "say whatever we want to whomever we want". That's GENERALLY true, but there ARE limitiations, the most common being not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there really IS a fire. Why? Because we don't want to create a general panic.

The same is true with carrying a weapon in a public environment. Despite the protests of a select few individuals, the generally accepted limitation is that we do NOT want to create a panic in an area of public access. SOME individuals may not like that, notably the "I can do whatever I want, I have the RIGHT, d****it!" No, there are limitations to that right, as there are with virtually ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

There is ALSO an implicit responsibility of proper handling and usage of a weapon, if the individual chooses to carry a weapon with them. If some BG attacks, they HAVE the right to protect / defend themself, or someone else on their behalf. They do NOT, repeat N-O-T have the right to yank a weapon from their holster and start banging away in "spray and pray" mode and HOPE they hit the BG, in the interim filling the surround area with flying rounds.

IF that weaponeer does that, he / she is responsible for EVERY SINGLE ROUND they've let fly, and will be called to account for that action. Shoot something they should NOT have (a window, a wall, an automobile, a cherished pet, god forbid an innocent bystander!) and cannot justify, and they WILL, absolutely, be held accountable in a court of law. Found to be wanton and negligent, perhaps even found to have acted in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property around them, they will be found guilty.

At the MINIMUM they'll forfeit their right to carry a weapon in public. More likely, they'll be found criminially irresponsible in some manner and found guilty of criminal negligence, reckless homocide, manslaughter, perhaps even murder.

Therefore, it's NOT me, as folks here might feel. It's historically been proven again and again in law, and in our society.

Therefore, it's my STRONG belief that ANY individual who chooses to arm themself in public, which they DO have the right to do, has the duty and responsibility to be HIGHLY trained and skilled.

For those here who were in the military, they know that in order to be allowed to utilize small arms (what we're talking about here) they're REQUIRED to QUALIFY with THAT weapon (or weapon type) BEFORE they're allowed to utilize it.

For LEO's, they're REQUIRED to qualify, demonstrate their training and skill, BEFORE they're allowed to utilize their weapons on the city streets.

It's my STRONG belief that the armed citizen SHOULD be held to the exact same criteria. Why? Because the armed citizen is no different then the military or LEO manor woman, who are ALSO American citizens.

Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves?

The question, IMHO is asked, essentially, backward. The question should be asked as

"Shouldn't anyone carrying a weapon in a public forum be highly trained and skilled?" The unequivocal answer is "Yes".

ANY person choosing to carry a weapon in public OWES a duty and responsibility to EVERY OTHER citizen, even other armed citizens (including cops and military guys) to take it upon themself to BECOME highly trained and skilled. IMO, if they're not willing to commit to that, then they shouldn't be toting a weapon among the general population. THAT'S the commitment, that's the responsibility.

Failing that, they're NOT really defending themself anyway, as they may very well miss their intended target. Worse, they're now a friggin' hazard to everyone around them.

Do I trust EVERYONE out there packing a weapon, as per the 2nd Amendment? NO, I do NOT. And, as mentioned elsewhere by me, one look around at virtually ANY gun range (holes in the ceiling, dings on the walls and floors, holes through the dividers between booths!) will prove my exact point.

I trust ONLY thosewho have shown they take their responsibility VERY seriously, and have taken it upon themself to become highly trained and skilled, and practice at regular intervals to STAY highly skilled.

Let's look at it from a practical perspective. I'm out at the mega-mall with my lady, suckin' down a Latte Grande. BG attacks "JoeArmed Citizen" across the mall, facing me and mine, more than 100' away. Joe Citizen, who hasn't"bothered" to attain a high level of skill because "he has the RIGHT, d***it!"draws his shiny new .45 and starts bangin' away at the perp, but also in MY direction.

Now who, at this moment, is the greater threat to me and my lady? Who may I now have to fire upon to eliminate that lethal threat to ME? That's right "Joe Armed Citizen".

Now, because of Joe's reckless lack of responsibilty and reckless act of arming himself without "bothering" to become highly skilled, I find myself in a scenario I had nothing to do with wherein I'M now shooting Joe to stop HIS wanton act of violence.

I strongly, wholeheartedly, and vehemently disagree that "it just doesn't happen as you imply". It HAS happened, and innocent bystanders HAVE been hit by stray bullets coming from lawfully present firearms.

It's happened more than once over the last 233 years since this country was established. And it's BECAUSE of this wanton and reckless disregard by SOME American citizens (including LEO's, btw) that CAUSED the anti-gun nutballs to freak out and begin their incessant attempts to prevent lawful AND responsible, armed citizens from being able to enjoy their rights.

Gun bans did NOT begin in the "Roaring Twenties". Hardly. Even Wyatt Earp had a gun ban in place in Tombstone, the enforcement of which is what led up the the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, btw.

So yeah, it HAS happened, and if we don't approach things with a common sense mindset, it WILL happen again.

The big "roar" from the gun public after Virginia Tech was that "SEE! We should be able to protect ourselves from nuts like Cho!" Agreed. But I ALSO know that Cho was, at the outset, a LEGALLY armed citizen, who became a nightmare. But Cho was not some "street scum coppin' a gat in the back alley at midnight".he initially WAS legally armed, guns legally purchased.

So, I'm not "implying" it happens, it DOES happen. I intend to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure it does NOT happen to me and mine. That INCLUDES constant and consistent training so I'm at the highest skill level I can possibly attain, AND doing what I can to restrict those who CHOOSE not to be highly skilled and trained, and recklessly, wantonly, and willfully act in complete disregard for MY rights and safety.

They DO have their rights, of course. But, I'm not going to let anyone assert their rights by stepping on mine. I've CHOSEN to beresponsible and become proficient in both execution and tactics, andI insist they do the same.

Just some thoughts.

J.B.

imported post

I'll be straight forward, I didn't read all of your post. It's about 10 minutes before I head to work and I just skimmed through it.

You say Joe Armed Citizen is dangerous to you and your lady because he's engaging a bad guy. I assume you're meaning that he isn't hitting the bad guy and stray bullets are flying everywhere. And you say this is a lack of training. However later on you mention Mr. Cho killing students in Virginia Tech. I wasn't aware that he had any formal training. If a crazed gunman who has never had any formal training can kill 30+ people over the course of a few minutes I think you're underestimating Joe Armed Citizen.

You also mentioned something about the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. You said that shouting fire is not within your right to free speech. That is not the same as causing panic in a public place because someone saw your firearm. If I shout fire I am creating a false alarm if there is no fire. If I am carrying a firearm in a holster how am I creating a false alarm?

imported post

JB-Indiana wrote:

I understand, and respect your thinking as well. I won't "argue" with you, since we're on the same side of the issue. But I would like to respond to an item or two.

Snip........

Click to expand...

Having at read virtually all of your postings, I conclude that you are a sincere advocate of the right to self defense. Yet you use verbiage that that fits well with the other side i.e. bangin' away; happened more than once; create a general panic; recklessly, wantonly, and willfully act; wanton act of violence, spray and pray; common sense approach......

You even suggest the use deadly force against an individual who missed their attacker with defensive fire.:shock: This action immediately would move you from friend to foe. Strange.

"For LEO's, they're REQUIRED to qualify, demonstrate their training and skill, BEFORE they're allowed to utilize their weapons on the city streets." and I might add that they regularly requalify. You are aware are you not, that legal permit holders hit innocent bystanders a lower per centage of times that do LEOs, right? There are many factors that play into this but the fact remains.

The comparison of 'yelling fire in a theater' is trite and well worn. It is used to suggest 'reasonable retrictions' whereas the comparable with guns would be drawing/threatening without provocation and no one suggests that that is not a 'reasonable restriction.' Perhaps a better suggestion would be to have a fire extinguisher close at hand - I do in my vehicle and at home - the theater already has them, but they don't protect me from violence.

Dodge City/Tombstone again - well many cities in this country should be so lucky as to have so few crimes of violence even before the Earps and Doc. OK Corral about gun control? - oh my, here I thought it was about personal vendetta - guess I don't watch enough movies.

No gun bans didn't start in the roaring 20s, they started with the advent of slavery to assure that the masters (govt?) did not need fear armed response of their 'property' ! Government and the fearful among us have been doing the same ever since - a knick and a slice at a time. Your qualifications to the subject are no less.

Chow may have purchased his guns legally but he did not act legally - he became a criminal. To apply the exception - a wonton act - to what anybody 'might do' or 'could do' is not logical. Would Chow have been a better gun owner with more training? (sarcasim)

" Doing what I can to restrict those who CHOOSE not to be highly skilled and trained"
Therefore I conclude that anyone that doesn't meet your standards of expertise should be disqualified from being allowed their RTBA. These standards would disarm the young woman threatened with death by her partner when she decides to buy a gun and must then wait days, weeks or years before she is 'qualified.' So to the grandmother being carjacked/kidnapped with her grandchildren would need to have left her gun at home. Add the cost of genuinely good training and regular range time - we'll just eliminate the lower income groups from the right to self-defense. Eventually only a few will be left so qualified and we as a nation will have been effectively disarmed. Not acceptable!

Do I advocate solid training: familiarity, marksmanship, tactical, force-on-force etc? You bet! All you can get and then some. I never stop training but I DO NOT set such limitations on others. I do not fear them (the good and legal citizens); rather I support them and encourage them. I trust them as our founding fathers did......and information regarding number of defensive uses of guns versus very low incidents of accidents bears this out.

'If it only saves one' pales in comparison to the crime figures where the citizens have been disarmed for whatever reason. Criminal acts by those bent on taking from us that which is ours are most frequently used as the excuse to protect us from ourselves - thereby punishing the innocent. :banghead:

Please rethink your position - hope that we do not have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I am done with this for now - more is not better and I don't think that my opinion will change yours although the facts might.

I'm off to the range to introduce a newbie and encourage her to buy a gun.....and get some training after today.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

The comparison of 'yelling fire in a theater' is trite and well worn. It is used to suggest 'reasonable retrictions' whereas the comparable with guns would be drawing/threatening without provocation and no one suggests that that is not a 'reasonable restriction.'

[SNIP]

Click to expand...

I would urge the OP perform a forum search on the term "Prior restraint". A nonsensical argument.

To the rest of Grapeshot's post, +1. The OP sounds like he is still in the intuitive stage of gun ownership (I.E. "It makes perfect sense that banning guns would reduce crime"). Later will come the well researched and knowledgeable stage .

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I'll be straight forward, I didn't read all of your post. It's about 10 minutes before I head to work and I just skimmed through it.

You say Joe Armed Citizen is dangerous to you and your lady because he's engaging a bad guy. I assume you're meaning that he isn't hitting the bad guy and stray bullets are flying everywhere. And you say this is a lack of training. However later on you mention Mr. Cho killing students in Virginia Tech. I wasn't aware that he had any formal training. If a crazed gunman who has never had any formal training can kill 30+ people over the course of a few minutes I think you're underestimating Joe Armed Citizen.

You also mentioned something about the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. You said that shouting fire is not within your right to free speech. That is not the same as causing panic in a public place because someone saw your firearm. If I shout fire I am creating a false alarm if there is no fire. If I am carrying a firearm in a holster how am I creating a false alarm?

Click to expand...

You're correct, you should've read the post. With all due respect, you're "argument" is ludicrous.

Cho didn't care who he shot, now did he? So he wasn't worried about stray bullets, and we have no idea how many rounds he actually shot in total. And we have no idea whether Cho ever had any training or not.

And I never said carrying a firearm in a holster created a false alarm. I said the right to free speech is NOT unlimited, there are requirements to that right we consider acceptable in a society.

SAME thing with carrying a weapon in society. There is a responsibility that goes with it, and THAT responsibility is being skilled and trained highly enough so you don't have lead flying everywhere, in the example provided.

NO ONE, not a single person on this forum or any other, can assure you, I, society, etc. of that UNLESS they're trained and skilled. Period. ESPECIALLY under the stress of an armed encounter. ESPECIALLY when the BG is, perhaps, banging away at YOU with a gun, as well.

And I'm guessing by the response(s) often posted here that MOST of the folks here have never been in an armed, potentially lethal, confrontation. Of course, I hope they never are, that would be a GOOD thing.

But ANYONE here who thinks they only have to practice with their chosen weapon once a year, or WORSE, buy it and holster it and m-a-y-b-e fired a couple times when they first got it, ANYONE who thinks that sufficient to produce socially acceptable results in a lethal encounter is, at best, deluded. Period. There are NO correct opinions to the contrary.

I don't care if they've packed a weapon for 20 years, are ex-military,a LEO, or whatever. Without some sort of training (formal or informal) and REGULAR practice, they are a danger to those around them, as provided in my example above. If that person has never been in an actual lethal encounter and/ or had another person actually shooting at them, they don't have a clue what they're talking about in an armed encounter, period. In fact, I would guess they may not even know their FIRST objective in a lethal encounter, OC, CC, gun in drawer, or whatever.

That's not my opinion, that's fact.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

JB
Having at read virtually all of your postings, I conclude that you are a sincere advocate of the right to self defense. Yet you use verbiage that that fits well with the other side i.e. bangin' away; happened more than once; create a general panic; recklessly, wantonly, and willfully act; wanton act of violence, spray and pray; common sense approach......

You even suggest the use deadly force against an individual who missed their attacker with defensive fire.:shock: This action immediately would move you from friend to foe. Strange.

"For LEO's, they're REQUIRED to qualify, demonstrate their training and skill, BEFORE they're allowed to utilize their weapons on the city streets." and I might add that they regularly requalify. You are aware are you not, that legal permit holders hit innocent bystanders a lower per centage of times that do LEOs, right? There are many factors that play into this but the fact remains.

The comparison of 'yelling fire in a theater' is trite and well worn. It is used to suggest 'reasonable retrictions' whereas the comparable with guns would be drawing/threatening without provocation and no one suggests that that is not a 'reasonable restriction.' Perhaps a better suggestion would be to have a fire extinguisher close at hand - I do in my vehicle and at home - the theater already has them, but they don't protect me from violence.

Dodge City/Tombstone again - well many cities in this country should be so lucky as to have so few crimes of violence even before the Earps and Doc. OK Corral about gun control? - oh my, here I thought it was about personal vendetta - guess I don't watch enough movies.

No gun bans didn't start in the roaring 20s, they started with the advent of slavery to assure that the masters (govt?) did not need fear armed response of their 'property' ! Government and the fearful among us have been doing the same ever since - a knick and a slice at a time. Your qualifications to the subject are no less.

Chow may have purchased his guns legally but he did not act legally - he became a criminal. To apply the exception - a wonton act - to what anybody 'might do' or 'could do' is not logical. Would Chow have been a better gun owner with more training? (sarcasim)

" Doing what I can to restrict those who CHOOSE not to be highly skilled and trained"
Therefore I conclude that anyone that doesn't meet your standards of expertise should be disqualified from being allowed their RTBA. These standards would disarm the young woman threatened with death by her partner when she decides to buy a gun and must then wait days, weeks or years before she is 'qualified.' So to the grandmother being carjacked/kidnapped with her grandchildren would need to have left her gun at home. Add the cost of genuinely good training and regular range time - we'll just eliminate the lower income groups from the right to self-defense. Eventually only a few will be left so qualified and we as a nation will have been effectively disarmed. Not acceptable!

Do I advocate solid training: familiarity, marksmanship, tactical, force-on-force etc? You bet! All you can get and then some. I never stop training but I DO NOT set such limitations on others. I do not fear them (the good and legal citizens); rather I support them and encourage them. I trust them as our founding fathers did......and information regarding number of defensive uses of guns versus very low incidents of accidents bears this out.

'If it only saves one' pales in comparison to the crime figures where the citizens have been disarmed for whatever reason. Criminal acts by those bent on taking from us that which is ours are most frequently used as the excuse to protect us from ourselves - thereby punishing the innocent. :banghead:

Please rethink your position - hope that we do not have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I am done with this for now - more is not better and I don't think that my opinion will change yours although the facts might.

I'm off to the range to introduce a newbie and encourage her to buy a gun.....and get some training after today.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Again, with respect, this is what often happens when this subject comes up. Often (NOT always, and I'm not accusingyou of this) it happens with those that expound "Ihave the UNLIMITED right to carry a weapon, whether I have any trainingor not, it's MY RIGHT!" crowd.

The points I make / madeare distorted, and there's this general feeling that I'm advocating taking someone's RKBA away. That's is patently false, and anyone attempting to distort my thoughts in to that, in any manner, is wrong, period.

I did NOT say *I* should decide on the level of training. That's wrong, and that's putting words in my mouth. Don't do it.

I SAID there should be SOME high level of training and skill involved, a level that WE as a society believe is acceptable. I said nothing more.

And yes, if Mr. Joe Armed Citizen is banging away as someone that he, for whatever reason, believes is a BG, and he's throwing lead at me because he has CHOSEN to be a miserable shot because he thinks he DOESN'T need to have a high level of skill because his "attitude" is "I have the RIGHT, no matter what!", then HE is being criminally irresponsible, and HE (in this example) is the lethal threat to ME and mine, NOT the BG he's shooting at. And yes, he may d*** well get shot.

I ALSO have the right to defend MYSELF (and those around me) from some a*****e who thinks he doesn't have to doanything except buy a gun, get a CCW / permit / whatever, strap it on and go out in public. *I* have that RIGHT, and I have the right to NOT get shot by idiot Joe Armed Citizen. YOU also have that right. In that case, he's acting negligently, and NO, I (and others in public) do NOT have to put up with that because "He has the RIGHT!". That's b.s., no matter WHAT the general forum philosophy is.

As noted, it's my STRONG opinion that ANY person, 2nd Amendment right or not, that cannot DEMONSTRATE an ability, to whomever we would collectively agree the skill should be demonstrated to, to handle their weapon with some level of mastery should NOT being carrying that weapon in public. They're a potential danger to themselves and EVERYONE around them, due to their own laziness and incompetence.

I'm sorry, I've seen WAY TOO MANY incompetent yabos packing weaponsto hold any other position. All ANYONE needs to do is go to a gun range and look at the bullet holes in the ceiling, walls, floor, and possibly THROUGH adjoining dividers in the booths! Period. I'm not wrong, period.

If this position is contrary to anyone else's here, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

imported post

JB-Indiana wrote:

(1)And I never said carrying a firearm in a holster created a false alarm. I said the right to free speech is NOT unlimited, there are requirements to that right we consider acceptable in a society.

(2)That's not my opinion, that's fact.

Click to expand...

[SNIP]The means that ANY law-abiding citizen SHOULD be allowed to CC on campus, IF they can demonstrate a high proficiency with their chosen CC weapon, proficiency of gun retention, a high level of understanding and proficiencyof shoot / don't shoot / tactical shooting scenarios, a high understanding of the laws surrounding these issues, etc., for safety reasons.

I'm much less comfortable with OC on campuses UNLESS the OC individual can demonstrate additional proficiency above and beyond the level for CC. For instance, and increased level of proficiency at weapons retention.[SNIP]

Click to expand...

(1)Again please look up prior restraint, if you would like to compare the 2nd amendment to the 1st. Especially considering the fact that you are mandating additional restrictions on possession of a firearm (see quote).

(2) We usually request that facts be cited on this forum .

ETA: Here's a nice description by Marshaul (found by searching on prior restraint)

AbNo wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Shorts wrote:

"You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

Click to expand...

Sure you can.

This one is commonly brought up by people who haven't thought out very carefully the positions they are arguing. I suggest you point that out to them after you defeat their arguments.

At any rate, the right to free speech is absolute. It is not in some way "limited" because "you can't" "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". But, with any rights come responsibilities. Simply put, rights give you the practical ability to infringe upon the rights of others but you never have the right to do so.

For example, you have the right to carry a gun for defense, but nobody would argue that right is "limited" because you can't shoot people on the street. Carrying a gun is your right, shooting someone violates their rights.

Properly understood, rights can never be in conflict.

Back to the fire example: your right to free speech enables you to yell in a theater (although of course as its private property you may be asked to leave), but what you don't have the right to do is cause people to be injured, or cause to be broken each of the contractual agreements between the patrons and the theater operator.

So, running in and yelling "@#$% BUSH!" would be within your rights, as would yelling "Fire!" if there is a fire, or if there is not assuming you A: didn't cause a stampede which killed anybody and B: the theater owner hired you to do so.

In fact, if you did cause a stampede, you wouldn't be liable for "exceeding" your "limited" "right to free speech", you would be liable for causing people to be injured, something quite unrelated to and unprotected by "free speech".

Click to expand...

This is an AWESOME post, and should be read again.

Click to expand...

imported post

JB-Indiana wrote:

NO ONE, not a single person on this forum or any other, can assure you, I, society, etc. of that UNLESS they're trained and skilled. Period. ESPECIALLY under the stress of an armed encounter. ESPECIALLY when the BG is, perhaps, banging away at YOU with a gun, as well.

Click to expand...

So you can assure me, that if they are trained, and skilled, that They are to be trusted.

I just did a quick search on this site, and found more than a few instances of trained individuals, using a firearm, in a way that would void them of any trust on my part regardless of their level of training.

What if my level of skill, and training exceeds yours? Am I now free to claim that you are not competent to defend yourself because you do not meet my criteria as to training, and skill level ? If not, why ?

I hope you can see the slippery slope that you are embarking upon. I can not help but feel that our forefathers saw this also, and is why we have the 2nd amendment.

imported post

truck2201 wrote:

JB-Indiana wrote:

NO ONE, not a single person on this forum or any other, can assure you, I, society, etc. of that UNLESS they're trained and skilled. Period. ESPECIALLY under the stress of an armed encounter. ESPECIALLY when the BG is, perhaps, banging away at YOU with a gun, as well.

Click to expand...

...I hope you can see the slippery slope that you are embarking upon. I can not help but feel that our forefathers saw this also, and is why we have the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

One can only hope!

(my emphasis above)

imported post

I would like to ask very quickly that, other than combat arms personnel, how many Army soldiers get more than the 2 weeks of BRM in basic training?

How often must they "qualify"? I believe it was annual or semi-annual. And unless things changed they "qualify" at 23/40?

I am telling you now that the people that believe there is some mystery to being a good shot and how to use a weapon are wrong.

Before BRM (basic rifle marksmanship) in basic training I had only shot a gun maybe 3 or 4 times. When I got on that M16A2 I hit 38 or 39 of 40 every time after just 1 week of grouping and zeroing the rifle. And I don't mean some arbitrary target sitting there waiting for me to line up and shoot, I mean reactive popping up on random order from ranges 50 yrds. to 300 yrds. The only one you could predict was "fast freddie #7"

With my XD, first time shooting I was accurately and with ease hitting 100 yard steel targets and would not in my wildest dreams consider myself "highly trained".

The average citizen can already possess the major skills needed. As long as they go to the range on a relatively usual basis they will do just fine (IMHO). Heck, even I only go to the range about 2 or 3 times a year and I will still hit the 400 yrd with my M38 no scope with ease.

And in relation to those that would cry that "college students are immature and vulnerable" I would tell you that these are the same women a men that are fighting our wars and helping protect and defend our country. How is it they are mature enough to handle that responsibility, but not the responsibility to carry a firearm?