interesting conversation with a student

the other day at work, got talking to the student worker on my crew. Told me he was going to run for president of the sga. told him that's cool, if you get it you should try and push for conceal and carry on campus. He laughed, said i'm all for guns but i don't wan't students walking around here with guns, there is just to many idiots this campus.

My honest opinion, there shouldn't be very many gun free zones (they don't seem to work out too good) even if there is "gun highly unlikely zones".

I wouldn't have half as much problem if universities would have really strict gun rules but said that they are allowed.

Requirements could be:

KY CCDW (What a joke)
5 Professor recommendations
10 years drug/alcohol free
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm.

Meeting all of those would be tough but still doable. If a collage has these rules to carry a gun on campus no one will fault them for a lack of security.

lol finding a kid that has been sober for 10 years. that knocks out about about 90% there.

Curtis C said:

the other day at work, got talking to the student worker on my crew. Told me he was going to run for president of the sga. told him that's cool, if you get it you should try and push for conceal and carry on campus. He laughed, said i'm all for guns but i don't wan't students walking around here with guns, there is just to many idiots this campus.

Click to expand...

I recently read this on another forum. I'll respond to this the same way I did previously.

I don't think that folks under the age of twenty-one should be allowed to conceal carry on a college campus. For the most part, they are too immature.

Before anyone gets upset, allow me to state that a military exemption would certainly be in order for a teenager who had served his/her country in uniform; but, by and large, teenagers have no business carrying concealed weapons on a college campus (or a high school campus, for that matter).

09jisaac said:

My honest opinion, there shouldn't be very many gun free zones (they don't seem to work out too good) even if there is "gun highly unlikely zones".

I wouldn't have half as much problem if universities would have really strict gun rules but said that they are allowed.

Requirements could be:

KY CCDW (What a joke)
5 Professor recommendations
10 years drug/alcohol free
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm.

Meeting all of those would be tough but still doable. If a collage has these rules to carry a gun on campus no one will fault them for a lack of security.

Click to expand...

You say that there shouldn't be many GFZs and then list a bunch of BS pre-conditions for carry on campus. Somehow I am hearing an echo from what all the other antis say - "reasonable restrictions" if I recall their term correctly. Let's look at your "reasonable restrictions":

KY CCDW (What a joke) - I have no knowledge about KY's CCDW, but wonder why you include it if you feel it, or having one. is a "joke".

5 Professor recommendations - Given the known liberal bias of college proffsors in general, and the anti-gun bias of most liberals, just how do you expect anyone to accumulate those five recommendations? Or is this just another "reasonable restriction" that is actually designed to prevent anybody from achieving the goal?

10 years drug/alcohol free - Lips that touch alcohol will never touch a gun? Really? Another zero-tolerance "reasonable restriction" imposed. What about those who are of legal drinking age? Do you really mean "drug free" or do you mean merely free from criminal use of drugs? And how would you document such a status as 10 years drug/alcohol free?

Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist - Just as soon as you make everyone else who regularly uses every other object capable of causing death or serious bodily injury to undergo the same. But maybe I'll just limit it to those who drive motor vehicles, seeing as they cause such a greater number of negligent deaths than do guns. By the way, were you aware that psychiatrists generally do not evaluate people for proclivities towards violence or criminality?* How are you going to fund this activity - or is the expense of it just another "reasonable restriction" you are going to impose?

$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage - First, are you suggesting a mandatory insurance policy, similar to what many states require of licensed drivers? Second, please explain how you are going to get any insurance company to underwtite such a policy when they won't even do so for the exceedingly small number of folks who voluntarily seek such coverage? And you are aware that most insurance will not cover you for damages caused by illegal acts? So just how will this "reasonable restriction" be met?

A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm - Does this come from the psychiatrist above? You know, the psychiatrist who does not evaluate anyone for proclivities towards violence or criminality? What assurances will the author of the letter provide that their prognostication can be trusted? What liability will they bear if they guess wrong?

Of course you never expected anybody to be able to met any of, let alone all of your "reasonable restrictions". But you are a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Usually I end my posts with "stay safe". In this case I will not. If you cannot understand why, I invite you to contact me for a full explanation.

MilProGuy said:

---snip---
I don't think that folks under the age of twenty-one should be allowed to conceal carry on a college campus. For the most part, they are too immature.

Click to expand...

The minimum age to carry concealed in Kentuky is 21 years of age, for OC it is 18. Please show where 18 and 21 year old LAC have proven too immature to carry off campus.
http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

It is already the law in Utah where students at all public colleges are allowed to carry a concealed gun if they have the proper permit. And, in Colorado several colleges have taken advantage of a state law giving them the option of allowing licensed handguns in class, several other institutions of higher learning there are also considering it. Similar measures have been proposed in about a dozen other states.
http://dianedimond.net/packing-heat-at-college/#more-3840

skidmark said:

You say that there shouldn't be many GFZs and then list a bunch of BS pre-conditions for carry on campus. Somehow I am hearing an echo from what all the other antis say - "reasonable restrictions" if I recall their term correctly. Let's look at your "reasonable restrictions":

Of course you never expected anybody to be able to met any of, let alone all of your "reasonable restrictions". But you are a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Usually I end my posts with "stay safe". In this case I will not. If you cannot understand why, I invite you to contact me for a full explanation.

Click to expand...

You reply back like they OWE us the right to carry on their property. Property rights are just as much of a right as the right to self defense. Most colleges are actively providing for that defense. University of Kentucky has a bigger police force than that of Ashland and most campuses are patrolled regularly. When I went to UK they had to report every crime of violence on campus and/or to any student. For being, itself, more populated than Bowling Green we didn't receive notices but once or so every month. So it doesn't seem like they were doing too bad of a job of it.

The Kentucky CCWD is a 25 question open book test than anyone with any sense can pass, I think you can even miss up to 7 on it (100% for me, without the book). The shooting portion is 11 out of 20 into the black of a full size silhouette at 7 yards(100% for me, and I didn't shoot it slow). A very hard thing to miss. I was implying that having your CCDW does not give you any credentials, as they're easier to get than your drivers licenses, and look how many people have them.

It is a step in the right direction. If you're like me then you think gun control only applies to sight alignment and trigger squeeze. But you can't get rid of all the restrictions in a day and still be favored by the public. If a college went from "no guns on campus" to "let everyone carry" and there was another tragic incident then the public would place the blame squarely on the colleges shoulders. You can't reason that the person was breaking the law and that a rule wouldn't help it. With rules the college can say that they did everything to prevent this, or if they went from these rules to no restrictions then they can claim that they were alright for "10 years" or something and that this is just a tragic incident no fault of their policy to allow students with guns.

Gun rights are like women, Mr Skidmark. You expect everything too soon and you'll screw everything up because OPINION matters more than facts, to most. They want to know that you can be trusted and your previous record means very little to them unless it is negative.

Also: Insurance doesn't pay out for illegal acts you commit, but they do on negligence. If your gun slips (hopefully not) out of the holster and just happens to go off and hit someone then they'll probably cover that if you have "carry" insurance.

MilProGuy said:

I recently read this on another forum. I'll respond to this the same way I did previously.

I don't think that folks under the age of twenty-one should be allowed to conceal carry on a college campus. For the most part, they are too immature.

Before anyone gets upset, allow me to state that a military exemption would certainly be in order for a teenager who had served his/her country in uniform; but, by and large, teenagers have no business carrying concealed weapons on a college campus (or a high school campus, for that matter).

Click to expand...

he is 22, he is going to get his conceal with his girlfriend when she turns 21. i don't think he quite understood when i said conceal on campus. think maybe he thought every tom dick and harry could carry.

09jisaac said:

You reply back like they OWE us the right to carry on their property. Property rights are just as much of a right as the right to self defense. Most colleges are actively providing for that defense. University of Kentucky has a bigger police force than that of Ashland and most campuses are patrolled regularly. When I went to UK they had to report every crime of violence on campus and/or to any student. For being, itself, more populated than Bowling Green we didn't receive notices but once or so every month. So it doesn't seem like they were doing too bad of a job of it.

The Kentucky CCWD is a 25 question open book test than anyone with any sense can pass, I think you can even miss up to 7 on it (100% for me, without the book). The shooting portion is 11 out of 20 into the black of a full size silhouette at 7 yards(100% for me, and I didn't shoot it slow). A very hard thing to miss. I was implying that having your CCDW does not give you any credentials, as they're easier to get than your drivers licenses, and look how many people have them.

It is a step in the right direction. If you're like me then you think gun control only applies to sight alignment and trigger squeeze. But you can't get rid of all the restrictions in a day and still be favored by the public. If a college went from "no guns on campus" to "let everyone carry" and there was another tragic incident then the public would place the blame squarely on the colleges shoulders. You can't reason that the person was breaking the law and that a rule wouldn't help it. With rules the college can say that they did everything to prevent this, or if they went from these rules to no restrictions then they can claim that they were alright for "10 years" or something and that this is just a tragic incident no fault of their policy to allow students with guns.

Gun rights are like women, Mr Skidmark. You expect everything too soon and you'll screw everything up because OPINION matters more than facts, to most. They want to know that you can be trusted and your previous record means very little to them unless it is negative.

Also: Insurance doesn't pay out for illegal acts you commit, but they do on negligence. If your gun slips (hopefully not) out of the holster and just happens to go off and hit someone then they'll probably cover that if you have "carry" insurance.

Click to expand...

Most colleges are public property. You are no supporter of the 2A.

Venator said:

Most colleges are public property. You are no supporter of the 2A.

Click to expand...

OH...... And what does that change? If I was talking about American homeowners' property rights would that matter if most American people don't own property? Hardly.

Now, we'll get back to College/University property. Can we do that? They have property rights, just because they allow people to pay to go to school there doesn't mean that they should have less rights. You can choose to go to a different school because they don't support you having a means of self defense, but they can't just get up and move because you don't support their property rights. They aren't infringing on your right to self-defense. The 2nd amendment has no relevance to this situation, the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe your right to self defense. Not businesses.

I support rights and your right to self defense doesn't trump everyone else's other rights.

How about you think before you try to insult. I am sure (sure hope) you are smart enough to make a logical argument.

09jisaac said:

OH...... And what does that change? If I was talking about American homeowners' property rights would that matter if most American people don't own property? Hardly.

Now, we'll get back to College/University property. Can we do that? They have property rights, just because they allow people to pay to go to school there doesn't mean that they should have less rights. You can choose to go to a different school because they don't support you having a means of self defense, but they can't just get up and move because you don't support their property rights. They aren't infringing on your right to self-defense. The 2nd amendment has no relevance to this situation, the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe your right to self defense. Not businesses.

I support rights and your right to self defense doesn't trump everyone else's other rights.

How about you think before you try to insult. I am sure (sure hope) you are smart enough to make a logical argument.

Click to expand...

Public colleges are part of the government - they are agencies of the state.

They do not have the same rights a private property owner.

They are infringing on the right to self-defense.

Find your arguments old, worn out and baseless.

Colleges have allowed the federal camel's nose into the big tent by their acceptance of federal money, soon the hump follows.

Same as my argument in http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Hospital-concealed-not-licensed-Poison-fruit that hospitals are agents of the government by virtue of accepting Obamascare.

The hump is coming, some are foresightful enough to fear it, others are sure that the elites will be kissed and lubricated first.

Grapeshot said:

Public colleges are part of the government - they are agencies of the state.

They do not have the same rights a private property owner.

They are infringing on the right to self-defense.

Find your arguments old, worn out and baseless.

Click to expand...

Yes and ALL black cats are black. That must mean that if I am talking about a cat then it has to be a black cat? I sure hope you understand this analogy because you're really not getting my point at all. You said public colleges, not me. I didn't specify anything until the 2nd post, I know, but after that it should have been clear. But no else brought up public collages until I said something about a private one.

NOT ALL COLLEGES ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT

^^^ Read that, if you don't get it then read it again.

They DO have the same rights as a private property owner, because they ARE a private property owner.
They are NOT infringing on my right to self defense, I can go somewhere else. No one is forcing me to go to this college or to even go to college at all. If they are infringing on my right to self-defense then every other private business is when they say I can't have guns there.

You, apparently, didn't understand my argument.

09jisaac said:

Yes and ALL black cats are black. That must mean that if I am talking about a cat then it has to be a black cat? I sure hope you understand this analogy because you're really not getting my point at all. You said public colleges, not me. I didn't specify anything until the 2nd post, I know, but after that it should have been clear. But no else brought up public collages until I said something about a private one.

NOT ALL COLLEGES ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT

^^^ Read that, if you don't get it then read it again.

They DO have the same rights as a private property owner, because they ARE a private property owner.
They are NOT infringing on my right to self defense, I can go somewhere else. No one is forcing me to go to this college or to even go to college at all. If they are infringing on my right to self-defense then every other private business is when they say I can't have guns there.

You, apparently, didn't understand my argument.

Click to expand...

Oh I get your point and you can twist at the end of your own rope.

You did say, "The 2nd amendment has no relevance to this situation, the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe your right to self defense." So do you then admit that such colleges that are state agencies cannot and should not so restrict?

Also private colleges do accept government funds - follow the money. The net effect of such restrictions is to drastically limit the options so as to effectively deny the choice - forcing the student to accept conditions. Not everyone should be required, nor are they being, to carry a self-defense tool BUT they should have the option.

Claimed private property is not always so. Waterside in Norflok (a shopping mall) claimed to be private until it was discovered that they were not really so - municipal money was used. Same thing with a shopping center in Hampton, and in the works is pending action against a teaching hospital that claims to be exempt through their connection with a university.

Your correlations are spurious at best.

Hillsdale College

Grapeshot said:

[ ... ]Also private colleges do accept government funds - follow the money. The net effect of such restrictions is to drastically limit the options so as to effectively deny the choice - forcing the student to accept conditions. Not everyone should be required, nor are they being, to carry a self-defense tool BUT they should have the option. [ ... ][my emphasis]

Click to expand...

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Hillsdale College said:

Hillsdale’s modern rise to national prominence began in the 1970s, when the federal government attempted to impose a host of regulations on the College—including racial quota requirements that violated Hillsdale’s principled policy of nondiscrimination. When the Supreme Court upheld these regulations in the 1980s on the basis that Hillsdale students received federally funded grants and loans, the College decided to refuse even this indirect form of federal aid, replacing all federal student aid with privately funded grants, loans, and scholarships. [my emphasis]

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Oh I get your point and you can twist at the end of your own rope.

You did say, "The 2nd amendment has no relevance to this situation, the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe your right to self defense." So do you then admit that such colleges that are state agencies cannot and should not so restrict?

Also private colleges do accept government funds - follow the money. The net effect of such restrictions is to drastically limit the options so as to effectively deny the choice - forcing the student to accept conditions. Not everyone should be required, nor are they being, to carry a self-defense tool BUT they should have the option.

Claimed private property is not always so. Waterside in Norflok (a shopping mall) claimed to be private until it was discovered that they were not really so - municipal money was used. Same thing with a shopping center in Hampton, and in the works is pending action against a teaching hospital that claims to be exempt through their connection with a university.

Your correlations are spurious at best.

Click to expand...

Twist at the end of my own rope? I clarified my 1st point on my 2nd, 3rd and 4th post before anyone would even entertain the thought that they are not right in this situation. I was talking about private schools (They own their own property (post 2), not public colleges (post 3), and part of the government (post 4)) You all assumed what I meant was wrong and you were determined to follow that assumption no matter what I clarified.

Yes, I do think that all land belonging to the people (government land) should be without restrictions on LAC. I have said it in many posts that I think that their isn't a crime committed if there isn't a victim. Most preventive regulations don't stop anything. It is already illegal to murder someone, making it illegal to own/possess the weapon used would do very little to stop it.

We are all here for OC. Most of us think that this is just a stepping stone to more freer gun laws, but when I suggest a step in the right direction that isn't complete freedom of carry then everyone jumps on it. Anyone tell the admin that he is wrong? Doubtful. He is doing what he can to help, but I suggest a compromise in the right direction and I am "no supporter of 2a".

Yes some "private" colleges do accept government funds, other only accept government money from the students (Kees, etc), others, as herr pointed out, don't accept any.

Thanks for the help Herr.

09jisaac said:

Twist at the end of my own rope? I clarified my 1st point on my 2nd, 3rd and 4th post before anyone would even entertain the thought that they are not right in this situation. I was talking about private schools (They own their own property (post 2), not public colleges (post 3), and part of the government (post 4)) You all assumed what I meant was wrong and you were determined to follow that assumption no matter what I clarified.

Yes, I do think that all land belonging to the people (government land) should be without restrictions on LAC. I have said it in many posts that I think that their isn't a crime committed if there isn't a victim. Most preventive regulations don't stop anything. It is already illegal to murder someone, making it illegal to own/possess the weapon used would do very little to stop it.

We are all here for OC. Most of us think that this is just a stepping stone to more freer gun laws, but when I suggest a step in the right direction that isn't complete freedom of carry then everyone jumps on it. Anyone tell the admin that he is wrong? Doubtful. He is doing what he can to help, but I suggest a compromise in the right direction and I am "no supporter of 2a".

Yes some "private" colleges do accept government funds, other only accept government money from the students (Kees, etc), others, as herr pointed out, don't accept any.

Thanks for the help Herr.

Click to expand...

A compromise?? Really like "reasonable restrictions"?

Was the I am "no supporter of 2a" a slip of the [strike]truth[/strike] tongue?

Your distinction/line in separating what constitutes private and that of others is not consistant.

Don't know that Herr helped you much - he gave one exception out of thousands.

09jisaac said:

My honest opinion, there shouldn't be very many gun free zones (they don't seem to work out too good) even if there is "gun highly unlikely zones".

I wouldn't have half as much problem if universities would have really strict gun rules but said that they are allowed.

Requirements could be:

KY CCDW (What a joke)
5 Professor recommendations
10 years drug/alcohol free
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm.

Meeting all of those would be tough but still doable. If a collage has these rules to carry a gun on campus no one will fault them for a lack of security.

Click to expand...

I think you need to be evaluated by a psychiatrist... Your nuts if you think anyone should have to jump through those hoops to exercise their God given rights.

Grapeshot said:

A compromise?? Really like "reasonable restrictions"?

Was the I am "no supporter of 2a" a slip of the [strike]truth[/strike] tongue?

Your distinction/line in separating what constitutes private and that of others is not consistant.

Don't know that Herr helped you much - he gave one exception out of thousands.

Click to expand...

Yes, property owners have the right to make rules of their property. Exactly like this forum, I can't be racist, I can't bash LEO, and I can't bash you. Some rights trump others. But that is only cyber property, not real property too? NOPE. So we're not really giving anything up if private property does "reasonable restrictions".

Of course, I do not support the 2nd amendment just because it isn't relative in what I was saying. You caught me. Or maybe I realize that rights are absolute until they interfere with other rights.

Consistent? Show me where it waivers. Just because I draw the line here and you mistake where it is at doesn't mean I am not consistent. I have changed my views before in my life, but not in the course of this thread.

That is the best part, I only need one out of millions to prove me right. I never said that all collages were public, like you were trying to imply, I only said some weren't.

garyh9900 said:

I think you need to be evaluated by a psychiatrist... Your nuts if you think anyone should have to jump through those hoops to exercise their God given rights.

Click to expand...

So property owners shouldn't have rights because other people do? Perfect logic right there.