The stuff about college kids being drunk was in response to BoytonBrother. He's the one that brought that up.

Your argument about the cops mistakenly shooting the good guy proves too much. The exact same thing could happen to me in my home...right? So if applied consistently, your argument is actually an argument against ANY private citizen using a firearm to defend himself ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, even in his own home, because he/she would run the risk of being mis-identified as the bad guy and subsequently shot by the cops. You not only have negated my right to carry on campus, you have abolished my right to self-defense entirely. So to be intellectually honest and logically consistent you'll have to come up with something else, or either just have the balls to admit that you really don't like the idea of private citizens having the right to defend themselves with guns at all, anywhere.

No. Not at all. I was using your fantasy example of a shooter in a public campus with a gun drawn against another gun man. And let's keep this civil, ok? I just don't want guns on school campuses at any level. I completely understand defending ones home.

And I never said the dean or Brittany in HR would be required to carry a gun...so just stop with your silly straw man arguments.

I didn't say she would be REQUIRED. That is a straw man, so don't. I said should she have to because everyone ELSE is carrying? You know, to feel safe as she walks to her car at night. Because that is what you are leading up to, everyone having a gun, because someone else might. Escalation.

THIS is what you don't understand, it's not a strawman. OSU is a public university, just like the state capitol down the road from it. It is the largest employer in the area. You are inviting firearms upon it. Would you also allow conceal and carry in the state capitol?

1) Assume Joe College Student has a legally owned gun, is skilled enough to handle it safely in a self-defense scenario, and has a permit to carry it concealed. There is a line. On the right side of the line is the OSU campus, on the left side is not the OSU campus. Please explain what happens to Joe as he passes over this line which causes his right to self-defense, and his competency with his gun to magically disappear? (We have already established his competency with the firearm so that he poses no more threat to his fellow students than an armed security guard would.)

2) I don't know if you have a family. If you don't, imagine that you do. An armed assailant breaks into your home and is violently attacking and raping your wife. He has a gun. What do you do? You and your kids are enjoying a movie when a "lone gunmen/active shooter" walks in hell bent on shooting up the place...he's pointing the gun at your son. What do you do? Call 911? Good luck with that. It's ironic that the first thing anti-gunners do when the s**t hits the fan is call someone with a gun to come to their aid and save them. When seconds count, the cops are 20 minutes away. And you're either dead or standing there with your d**k in your hand while your wife gets violently raped and beaten to a pulp. I actually know an anti-gunner who stated that he would rather stand there and doing nothing than shoot the rapist with a gun. I lost all respect for that man at that time. You have a moral responsibility to protect your loved ones. What would you do in those situations? (I'm assuming you don't own a gun).

I think you've seen too many Death Wish movies.

The stuff about college kids being drunk was in response to BoytonBrother. He's the one that brought that up.

Your argument about the cops mistakenly shooting the good guy proves too much. The exact same thing could happen to me in my home...right? So if applied consistently, your argument is actually an argument against ANY private citizen using a firearm to defend himself ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, even in his own home, because he/she would run the risk of being mis-identified as the bad guy and subsequently shot by the cops. You not only have negated my right to carry on campus, you have abolished my right to self-defense entirely. So to be intellectually honest and logically consistent you'll have to come up with something else, or either just have the balls to admit that you really don't like the idea of private citizens having the right to defend themselves with guns at all, anywhere.

No. Not at all. I was using your fantasy example of a shooter in a public campus with a gun drawn against another gun man. And let's keep this civil, ok? I just don't want guns on school campuses at any level. I completely understand defending ones home.

And I never said the dean or Brittany in HR would be required to carry a gun...so just stop with your silly straw man arguments.

I didn't say she would be REQUIRED. That is a straw man, so don't. I said should she have to because everyone ELSE is carrying? You know, to feel safe as she walks to her car at night. Because that is what you are leading up to, everyone having a gun, because someone else might. Escalation.

THIS is what you don't understand, it's not a strawman. OSU is a public university, just like the state capitol down the road from it. It is the largest employer in the area. You are inviting firearms upon it. Would you also allow conceal and carry in the state capitol?

1) Assume Joe College Student has a legally owned gun, is skilled enough to handle it safely in a self-defense scenario, and has a permit to carry it concealed. There is a line. On the right side of the line is the OSU campus, on the left side is not the OSU campus. Please explain what happens to Joe as he passes over this line which causes his right to self-defense, and his competency with his gun to magically disappear? (We have already established his competency with the firearm so that he poses no more threat to his fellow students than an armed security guard would.)

2) I don't know if you have a family. If you don't, imagine that you do. An armed assailant breaks into your home and is violently attacking and raping your wife. He has a gun. What do you do? You and your kids are enjoying a movie when a "lone gunmen/active shooter" walks in hell bent on shooting up the place...he's pointing the gun at your son. What do you do? Call 911? Good luck with that. It's ironic that the first thing anti-gunners do when the s**t hits the fan is call someone with a gun to come to their aid and save them. When seconds count, the cops are 20 minutes away. And you're either dead or standing there with your d**k in your hand while your wife gets violently raped and beaten to a pulp. I actually know an anti-gunner who stated that he would rather stand there and doing nothing than shoot the rapist with a gun. I lost all respect for that man at that time. You have a moral responsibility to protect your loved ones. What would you do in those situations? (I'm assuming you don't own a gun).

I think you've seen too many Death Wish movies.

I've never seen a Death Wish movie, so the reference is lost on me. You didn't answer the questions.

I get that you don't want guns on campus...but you haven't even come close to being able to justify/defend that position in any logically consistent manner. You said your argument only applied to a college campus and not my home, but that makes no sense. You have to be able to explain why the "cop shoots good guy by mistake" argument is only valid on a college campus, but it's not valid when applied to my home/grocery store/movie theater, etc. You can't just arbitrarily say it applies in one place, but not another. And that's exactly what you are doing. On one hand you use the example/argument when it seems to support what you want (no guns on campus), but then on the other hand you deny it when it inconveniently proves too much...you back off of it and say it doesn't apply to having guns in the home. Hey, if you are cool with living with those glaring inconsistencies that's fine. Just don't try to pass it off as a rational justification for your position. What it boils down to is you just don't LIKE/WANT guns on campus. And that's fine. But we need to make the distinction between what you like/want and what you can logically defend.

And your "escalation" argument is just silly. There are currently millions of folks in this country who have concealed carry permits and carry guns every day. Why are we not observing this "escalation" behavior throughout the country? Have you gone out and bought a gun? Oh, right...it must be another one of those things that is unique to the college campus, but doesn't apply anywhere else. Got it.

You really need to get past this liberal/left ingrained mentality that people who legally carry guns are bad guys. No need to fear us, bro...we are nice, normal, very responsible people who might just save your life some day. We have simply made a choice to take personal responsibility for the protection of our life and the ones we love. I carry everyday (where ever it is legal). It is a huge commitment and not something that I entered into without giving it a lot of thought. I absolutely would not do it if I did not know that I was competent to handle and operate the gun safely. The last thing I want to do is endanger other people. I hope to God I never have to pull it. And I totally get that some folks don't want a gun, or don't want to carry a gun. That's fine...just don't try to deny other people's right to do so. Live and let live.

I get that you don't want guns on campus...but you haven't even come close to being able to justify/defend that position in any logically consistent manner.

Yes I did, you've just chosen to ignore most of what I've said and talk about gun ownership, rather than conceal and carry on a college school campus.

You said your argument only applied to a college campus and not my home, but that makes no sense. You have to be able to explain why the "cop shoots good guy by mistake" argument is only valid on a college campus, but it's not valid when applied to my home/grocery store/movie theater, etc.

This whole thread pertains to conceal and carry on college campuses, that is the topic. I never said 'it couldn't happen in your home' - you said that through your own backwards logic. The hypothetical situations we discussed are different, as you laid them out. On a campus, an open space, a cop shows up and sees a shoot out between an assailant and students with conceal & carry - how does the officer assess the situation? Did the citizen make the officer's job easier or more difficult? It's hard to say, because this is such a rare fantasy case. Likely the citizen sees the police arrive and puts his gun down, but maybe he doesn't. Maybe the officers are able to parse whom is the target. You can't say for sure, I merely said it was a possibility that it would make officer's jobs more difficult and possibly result in the death of the student. There is a risk for ANY plainclothes conceal and carrier brandishing a gun, for whatever good intentions, being shot at by a cop because they don't have time to check their license.

In a home, we are talking about a legal gun owner defending against an intruder in a closed space. If the officer gets there before/after a confrontation, I doubt the home owner would walk out to the cop brandishing a gun, assuming they are a responsible gun owner. If the cops have been called, they probably have been alerted by the caller that there is a gun or the cop likely anticipates the possibility of a homeowner having a gun. Rarely has a cop shot a homeowner when reporting to a B&E, though it has happened (recently in Indianapolis), and that is a risk the home/gun owner has to accept. It's not right or fair, but it's a possibility, and not one most schools would like to accept as readily as a home owner.

You can't just arbitrarily say it applies in one place, but not another.

If they are very different situations, it is not arbitrary at all.

But we need to make the distinction between what you like/want and what you can logically defend.

You ignoring the details, you are ignoring the specificities of the topic (college campuses). You should probably read this last sentence back to yourself.

And your "escalation" argument is just silly. There are currently millions of folks in this country who have concealed carry permits and carry guns every day. Why are we not observing this "escalation" behavior throughout the country? Have you gone out and bought a gun? Oh, right...it must be another one of those things that is unique to the college campus, but doesn't apply anywhere else. Got it.

The escalation is simply math. Why are you carrying a gun? Because an assailant might have a gun. If you didn't think you might need a gun, you probably wouldn't need to walk into Home Depot with one. And for the zillionth time, college campuses are different. You know why you can't bring a gun into a state capitol? It's a security risk. It's a different space than a private home.

You really need to get past this liberal/left ingrained mentality that people who legally carry guns are bad guys. No need to fear us, bro...we are nice, normal, very responsible people who might just save your life some day.

Guns are not partisan. Ronald Reagan could tell you that. I don't care if you walk around with a gun if it makes you feel personally safer. If so, that's great. They just don't need to be on college campuses. You've wasted a lot of our time going down your own rabbit hole of totally unrelated arguments that do not pertain to guns on a college campus - a school and a place of public employment that is already one of the safest spaces in the country thanks to its own police force. The middle school across that street from my old apartment was named for the principal who was killed by a stray bullet while looking for truant kids. A gun on his hip would not have saved him.

And I totally get that some folks don't want a gun, or don't want to carry a gun. That's fine...just don't try to deny other people's right to do so. Live and let live.

Yeah, I didn't, I said exactly the opposite. You really hear what you want to hear, don't you? That's not what we are talking about at all here, not what I've said. We are not talking about owning guns or conceal and carry laws, just conceal and carry on college school campuses.

I get that you don't want guns on campus...but you haven't even come close to being able to justify/defend that position in any logically consistent manner.

Yes I did, you've just chosen to ignore most of what I've said and talk about gun ownership, rather than conceal and carry on a college school campus.

You said your argument only applied to a college campus and not my home, but that makes no sense. You have to be able to explain why the "cop shoots good guy by mistake" argument is only valid on a college campus, but it's not valid when applied to my home/grocery store/movie theater, etc.

This whole thread pertains to conceal and carry on college campuses, that is the topic. I never said 'it couldn't happen in your home' - you said that through your own backwards logic. The hypothetical situations we discussed are different, as you laid them out. On a campus, an open space, a cop shows up and sees a shoot out between an assailant and students with conceal & carry - how does the officer assess the situation? Did the citizen make the officer's job easier or more difficult? It's hard to say, because this is such a rare fantasy case. Likely the citizen sees the police arrive and puts his gun down, but maybe he doesn't. Maybe the officers are able to parse whom is the target. You can't say for sure, I merely said it was a possibility that it would make officer's jobs more difficult and possibly result in the death of the student. There is a risk for ANY plainclothes conceal and carrier brandishing a gun, for whatever good intentions, being shot at by a cop because they don't have time to check their license.

In a home, we are talking about a legal gun owner defending against an intruder in a closed space. If the officer gets there before/after a confrontation, I doubt the home owner would walk out to the cop brandishing a gun, assuming they are a responsible gun owner. If the cops have been called, they probably have been alerted by the caller that there is a gun or the cop likely anticipates the possibility of a homeowner having a gun. Rarely has a cop shot a homeowner when reporting to a B&E, though it has happened (recently in Indianapolis), and that is a risk the home/gun owner has to accept. It's not right or fair, but it's a possibility, and not one most schools would like to accept as readily as a home owner.

You can't just arbitrarily say it applies in one place, but not another.

If they are very different situations, it is not arbitrary at all.

But we need to make the distinction between what you like/want and what you can logically defend.

You ignoring the details, you are ignoring the specificities of the topic (college campuses). You should probably read this last sentence back to yourself.

And your "escalation" argument is just silly. There are currently millions of folks in this country who have concealed carry permits and carry guns every day. Why are we not observing this "escalation" behavior throughout the country? Have you gone out and bought a gun? Oh, right...it must be another one of those things that is unique to the college campus, but doesn't apply anywhere else. Got it.

The escalation is simply math. Why are you carrying a gun? Because an assailant might have a gun. If you didn't think you might need a gun, you probably wouldn't need to walk into Home Depot with one. And for the zillionth time, college campuses are different. You know why you can't bring a gun into a state capitol? It's a security risk. It's a different space than a private home.

You really need to get past this liberal/left ingrained mentality that people who legally carry guns are bad guys. No need to fear us, bro...we are nice, normal, very responsible people who might just save your life some day.

Guns are not partisan. Ronald Reagan could tell you that. I don't care if you walk around with a gun if it makes you feel personally safer. If so, that's great. They just don't need to be on college campuses. You've wasted a lot of our time going down your own rabbit hole of totally unrelated arguments that do not pertain to guns on a college campus - a school and a place of public employment that is already one of the safest spaces in the country thanks to its own police force. The middle school across that street from my old apartment was named for the principal who was killed by a stray bullet while looking for truant kids. A gun on his hip would not have saved him.

And I totally get that some folks don't want a gun, or don't want to carry a gun. That's fine...just don't try to deny other people's right to do so. Live and let live.

Yeah, I didn't, I said exactly the opposite. You really hear what you want to hear, don't you? That's not what we are talking about at all here, not what I've said. We are not talking about owning guns or conceal and carry laws, just conceal and carry on college school campuses.

______________________________________________________________________________________

So what is your solution?

@ porkchopbob

“If they are very different situations, it is not arbitrary at all.”

But you have yet to explain why/how they are very different situations, and that is exactly why your distinction is purely arbitrary. The burden of proof is on you to show how they are “very different”.

Let me see if I can break it down in such a way that you will see my point…

So you have a number of reasons why you think concealed carry on campus is a bad idea. We’ve been over them multiple times so no need to rehash them. Let’s say we can boil down all of your reasons/concerns to a set of conditions/variables that will determine the outcome of a self-defense incident. For the sake of making this easy, lets call this set of conditions: A, B, C

For example, it might breakdown something like this:
A = the age/competency/skill level/maturity/judgment of the person carrying the concealed weapon
B = cops arrive and mistakenly shoot the good guy instead of the bad guy
C = pick any reason/condition you like that would effect the outcome (whether positive or negative is irrelevant) of the self-defense incident about to occur
D = the outcome/result of A, B and C

With me so far? Now…let’s look at two scenarios.

Scenario 1: A Starbucks located 5 feet from the OSU campus contains 20 college students. A self-defense incident occurs where conditions A, B, C are met. The outcome is D.

Scenario 2: A classroom located on the OSU campus contains 20 college students. A self-defense incident occurs where conditions A, B, C are met. The outcome is D.

What changed? Absolutely nothing except that the LOCATION changed by a mere 5 feet (could have even used an inch in the example). The incident played out exactly the same and the outcome is exactly the same.

Hope that helps. Your argument is purely arbitrary in the sense that the only distinction you can possibly make (i.e. the physical location of the incident) has absolutely no material/practical significance to the outcome. You might as well be saying that you don’t have a problem with me carrying a concealed weapon in a room that is painted blue, but you do have an issue with me carrying it in a room painted red. 100% arbitrary. Explain to me why you would trust me to have a concealed weapon around 20 college students at the Starbucks, but you would not trust me to have one with those same 20 college students in a classroom? Again, what magically changed in the risk or threat that I pose to the safety of those students simply because the physical space that we are occupying has changed by a mere 5 feet? If you can’t answer this question, then you have no leg to stand on.

“Yeah, I didn't, I said exactly the opposite.”

Really? You are absolutely denying the right of self-defense to any/all concealed carry permit holders who might visit the OSU campus. You are denying the rights of students and faculty to carry on campus. You are denying EVERYONE the right. Let me rephrase my previous comment…“I totally get that some folks don't want a gun on campus, or don't want to carry a gun on campus. That's fine...just don't try to deny other people's right to do so. “ Again, what magical change occurred to my rights simply because the physical space that I am occupying has changed by a mere 5 feet (or one inch)? I no longer have a right to defend myself when I step onto OSU property? There are millions of folks in this country who have concealed carry permits. Each and every one of them would have their rights denied if they visited OSU…correct?

[Edited on 12/3/2016 by Redfish7]

[Edited on 12/3/2016 by Redfish7]

I get that you don't want guns on campus...but you haven't even come close to being able to justify/defend that position in any logically consistent manner.

Yes I did, you've just chosen to ignore most of what I've said and talk about gun ownership, rather than conceal and carry on a college school campus.

You said your argument only applied to a college campus and not my home, but that makes no sense. You have to be able to explain why the "cop shoots good guy by mistake" argument is only valid on a college campus, but it's not valid when applied to my home/grocery store/movie theater, etc.

This whole thread pertains to conceal and carry on college campuses, that is the topic. I never said 'it couldn't happen in your home' - you said that through your own backwards logic. The hypothetical situations we discussed are different, as you laid them out. On a campus, an open space, a cop shows up and sees a shoot out between an assailant and students with conceal & carry - how does the officer assess the situation? Did the citizen make the officer's job easier or more difficult? It's hard to say, because this is such a rare fantasy case. Likely the citizen sees the police arrive and puts his gun down, but maybe he doesn't. Maybe the officers are able to parse whom is the target. You can't say for sure, I merely said it was a possibility that it would make officer's jobs more difficult and possibly result in the death of the student. There is a risk for ANY plainclothes conceal and carrier brandishing a gun, for whatever good intentions, being shot at by a cop because they don't have time to check their license.

In a home, we are talking about a legal gun owner defending against an intruder in a closed space. If the officer gets there before/after a confrontation, I doubt the home owner would walk out to the cop brandishing a gun, assuming they are a responsible gun owner. If the cops have been called, they probably have been alerted by the caller that there is a gun or the cop likely anticipates the possibility of a homeowner having a gun. Rarely has a cop shot a homeowner when reporting to a B&E, though it has happened (recently in Indianapolis), and that is a risk the home/gun owner has to accept. It's not right or fair, but it's a possibility, and not one most schools would like to accept as readily as a home owner.

You can't just arbitrarily say it applies in one place, but not another.

If they are very different situations, it is not arbitrary at all.

But we need to make the distinction between what you like/want and what you can logically defend.

You ignoring the details, you are ignoring the specificities of the topic (college campuses). You should probably read this last sentence back to yourself.

And your "escalation" argument is just silly. There are currently millions of folks in this country who have concealed carry permits and carry guns every day. Why are we not observing this "escalation" behavior throughout the country? Have you gone out and bought a gun? Oh, right...it must be another one of those things that is unique to the college campus, but doesn't apply anywhere else. Got it.

The escalation is simply math. Why are you carrying a gun? Because an assailant might have a gun. If you didn't think you might need a gun, you probably wouldn't need to walk into Home Depot with one. And for the zillionth time, college campuses are different. You know why you can't bring a gun into a state capitol? It's a security risk. It's a different space than a private home.

You really need to get past this liberal/left ingrained mentality that people who legally carry guns are bad guys. No need to fear us, bro...we are nice, normal, very responsible people who might just save your life some day.

Guns are not partisan. Ronald Reagan could tell you that. I don't care if you walk around with a gun if it makes you feel personally safer. If so, that's great. They just don't need to be on college campuses. You've wasted a lot of our time going down your own rabbit hole of totally unrelated arguments that do not pertain to guns on a college campus - a school and a place of public employment that is already one of the safest spaces in the country thanks to its own police force. The middle school across that street from my old apartment was named for the principal who was killed by a stray bullet while looking for truant kids. A gun on his hip would not have saved him.

And I totally get that some folks don't want a gun, or don't want to carry a gun. That's fine...just don't try to deny other people's right to do so. Live and let live.

Yeah, I didn't, I said exactly the opposite. You really hear what you want to hear, don't you? That's not what we are talking about at all here, not what I've said. We are not talking about owning guns or conceal and carry laws, just conceal and carry on college school campuses.

______________________________________________________________________________________

So what is your solution?

He is essentially arguing for victim disarmament on college campuses although he would never put it in those terms or admit to it. I guess that is the "solution"?

The logic (his, not mine) goes something like this...given two possible scenarios...
1) Victim with gun versus violent attacker/rapist
2) Victim w/o gun versus violent attacker/rapist

...he prefers scenario 2. Students, faculty and visitors to the campus will apparently be safer if they have no way to defend themselves even though well over 95% of these types of attacks occur in gun free zones.

[Edited on 12/4/2016 by Redfish7]

Redfish, the only one living in a fantasy world is you. Lets say in your perfect world, a new federal law allows for students to carry guns anywhere they please, provided they get the right permits. What percentage of college students do you believe will take all the necessary steps to have a carry permit? I would say about 1%. The other 99% won't want it. If you think it's more, then I would say you are out of touch with college life. This fantasy that the law is preventing college students from arming themselves, which in turn would've prevented a terrorist attack, is assinine. Don't like the university's policy? Then don't go there - choose a different path in life. Stop blaming the big bad university for oppressing. If students want a change, they can make one. For now, they can follow the rules or leave. And I love how you won't address the silly irony that the one terrorist attack who didn't use a gun, ended up not killing any victims. Don't address that one little detail.

Redfish, the only one living in a fantasy world is you. Lets say in your perfect world, a new federal law allows for students to carry guns anywhere they please, provided they get the right permits. What percentage of college students do you believe will take all the necessary steps to have a carry permit? I would say about 1%. The other 99% won't want it. If you think it's more, then I would say you are out of touch with college life. This fantasy that the law is preventing college students from arming themselves, which in turn would've prevented a terrorist attack, is assinine. Don't like the university's policy? Then don't go there - choose a different path in life. Stop blaming the big bad university for oppressing. If students want a change, they can make one. For now, they can follow the rules or leave. And I love how you won't address the silly irony that the one terrorist attack who didn't use a gun, ended up not killing any victims. Don't address that one little detail.

Since when are rights determined by what % of people want them, or what % of people will exercise the right in question? Do you even understand what a right is?

What % of the US population wants to marry a person of the same sex, and of that % what subset of those who want to marry a person of the same sex will actually go through with it? To be consistent with your line of reasoning and your concept of rights, is it safe to assume that you are also opposed to people of the same sex having the right to marry? Participants in same sex marriage certainly make up an extremely tiny % of the population…right? Isn’t the purpose of government/the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of a majority?

Or how about this…would it be OK for OSU to tell a same-sex couple…”we reluctantly recognize/concede your right to be married on that side of the OSU line, but we do not recognize your marriage as being valid while on campus“?

Also, just out of curiosity…where did you come up with the 1%? Does that account for faculty and other staff, people who might be visiting or passing through the campus for some reason (but aren’t necessarily students). Unless I am misunderstanding the laws/rules (and correct me if I am), then NO ONE is allowed to carry on campus…correct? So it doesn’t just impact students, it impacts everyone…correct? Or does the ban only apply to students?

Am I really that out of touch? http://concealedcampus.org/

Yes, I live in the fantasy world in which a guy with a gun can stop a terrorist attack. No, wait…that is exactly what happened in this scenario so it must be reality. I am simply arguing for the point that if one of the 7 victims of the knife had been armed with just such a gun (you know…like the one the security guard had), then we wouldn’t even be having a conversation about 7 victims. It might only be 5 victims, or 2 or even zero. In my version of reality, 2 victims injured is better than 7 injured. I hear or read about incidents on a fairly regular basis where an armed citizen stopped an attack of some sort. It‘s not uncommon at all. However, I’m still waiting to hear about all of these frequently occurring wild west shootouts between drunk college students, and I‘m especially interested in hearing about all the ones that resulted from a firearm being used in a real self-defense incident. Now...remind me me again about who lives in a make believe world?

As for me supposedly not addressing the irony that the one terrorist attack who didn't use a gun, ended up not killing any victims. I’m glad the “terrorist” didn’t have a gun and that no students were killed. I can’t imagine anyone who would think otherwise and therefore I did not feel the need to state the obvious. And the scope of the conversation had evolved into a larger discussion about concealed carry rights on campus, so that’s where I was focusing my responses. Pay attention.

It’s great that this one turned out like it did. But don’t be so naïve to think this is the norm. This is the exception rather than the rule. If you had been at VT on 04/16/07, you’d be praying that either you or the guy next to you had a gun. 32 people dead and 17 wounded waiting for security/law enforcement to handle the problem. VT’s firearms ban - the gun free zone - worked great…right? And I guess it’s just a coincidence that something like 95% or more of these types of attacks happen in gun free zones.

What you people don’t seem to understand is that the greatest enemy (other than the attacker himself of course) is time. The longer you wait for help to arrive, the more time the nut job with the gun has to fire, reload and keep shooting people. And people who are not firing back tend to be easy targets. Common sense…right? But apparently common sense isn’t all that common among the anti-gun fanatics.

The more private citizens there are carrying guns (or college students/faculty/staff in this case), the fewer shots the crazies can get off before one of the good guys starts returning fire. A gun is the great equalizer which allows even the weak or the small to repel threats that are much bigger and stronger. Being armed at least gives you options. Why on earth would anyone not want to have that option…and who are you to deny them that option?

If you are unarmed, then you have only one option…stand there and be a helpless and soon to be dead (or knifed) victim.

[Edited on 12/4/2016 by Redfish7]

Who am I to deny it? Nobody. But the university is able to have its policy. Don't like it? Dont' go there. That's America, right? Nobody's forcing the student to attend that particular university. It's great when everyone has equal rights.

Cop shoot and kills an Islamic Extremist Terrorist let into the U.S. by Obama.
This is a theme you will see happen more and more.

Who am I to deny it? Nobody. But the university is able to have its policy. Don't like it? Dont' go there. That's America, right? Nobody's forcing the student to attend that particular university. It's great when everyone has equal rights.

Actually I believe it is state law, not university policy...a state wide gun ban on all college/university campuses in Ohio...right? It's a denial of the rights of ALL gun owners (not just students/faculty) to carry on any campus any where in the state. So, for example, a student wishing to carry would be required to move to another state, pay out of state tuition, miss out on state scholarships/grants, etc. Yeah, it is great when everyone has equal rights. Maybe one day gun owners in Ohio and other states who want to attend college in the same state where they reside will have the same rights as everyone else.

And the way the conversation/debate had been framed thus far was that we were discussing the wisdom of having the policy/law (whichever it is) in the first place...you were giving reasons why you thought guns on campus where a bad idea, and I was giving reasons why it is a good idea and why people have a right to self-defense. And I totally get that "Nobody's forcing the student to attend that particular university"...so thanks for stating the obvious and clearing that up for me. But I was talking about the rights of people who do choose to attend, work at or visit OSU. If I'm not mistaken we were debating the law/ban itself, not the freedom of choice for students to choose which school they will attend.

But going back to your statement..."the university is able to have its policy. Don't like it? Dont' go there." So if the university had a policy that discriminated against same-sex marriage, you'd be cool with that...right? And if a same-sex couple did not like it...well, too bad...go somewhere else. The university's policy can trump the individual's rights? Can they discriminate against anyone they want to...or just gun owners?

So who were the ones complaining? Where you get the info Fox news or asshole trump?

If you can pull yourself from your racist tendencies for just a moment, go to
www.wnd.com/2016/11/dems-call-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-ohio-state-stabbing-spree/

Amazing how they jumped on the "gun control" bandwagon with most of the posters not showing any compassion for those who were run over by the car or knifed in the incident, without first getting their facts straight.

Violence on a campus Quick, ban the gun, ban the gun, ban the gun; what do you mean no gun was involved? Quick delete the message, delete, delete. delete. Oh, somebody was hurt, oh, who cares.

Just thought I'd add this on.
Many states will not allow a concealed carry until you reach the age of 21, some are higher.
So thoughts of 19 year old immature, drunk, rowdy concealed carry students is kind of like-ridiculous.
Students who would be able to conceal carry would be either Juniors or Seniors.

Quite unlike my high school where we had a lock-up so our firearm weren't stolen from our cars while in class.
It really wasn't unusual to see a student carrying a rifle on the city buses.

He is essentially arguing for victim disarmament on college campuses although he would never put it in those terms or admit to it. I guess that is the "solution"?

The logic (his, not mine) goes something like this...given two possible scenarios...
1) Victim with gun versus violent attacker/rapist
2) Victim w/o gun versus violent attacker/rapist

...he prefers scenario 2. Students, faculty and visitors to the campus will apparently be safer if they have no way to defend themselves even though well over 95% of these types of attacks occur in gun free zones.

Redfish, you have really only read what you want from what I've said and made giants leaps in interpretation. Obviously you feel, quite passionately, that conceal and carry owners are discriminated against in some places. I think some places are safer because they don't allow guns. If that's applied arbitrarily, then so is having a gun in the Starbucks on OSU vs having a gun in the Starbucks at the Columbus Airport or the state capitol. All spaces are defined by us, typically for a very good reason. Obviously I'm not saying there's some magic barrier that will give students sanctuary from danger, but Universities are already very safe spaces for young people who are on their own for the first time, something schools go to great lengths to ensure. You simplify everything down to violent rape, but there isn't a lot of that happening in classrooms and campus buildings (which is what we are talking about).

Cops have hours of specific training to respond to intense situations, Joe College might have target practice and taken a 4-hour required class, but he doesn't know how to respond in a pressure situation. (here's an interesting study on just that:

)

The University of Texas-Austin recently allowed concealed and carry on campus (14 other states voted against it last year). However, permits are only given to those 21 and up, which means few conceal and carriers live on campus so most of them could already own a gun in their private residence (I mentioned this before). It allows guns in classrooms, but they must be concealed. It was heavily protested by students and faculty who don't feel safer. Permit holders feel safer. There is not enough evidence to prove an increase or decrease in safety affected by concealed guns. However:

A UT report identified four incidents of accidental discharge: “Two involved a license holder who was openly displaying a handgun to another person; the other two involved license holders who were carrying their handguns unholstered in their pants pocket.” In one case, a bullet grazed another student’s chest. But most of the victims were the gun owners. One shot himself in the foot, the report said, and in Utah, “a student at Weber State University accidentally shot himself in the leg while walking across campus with an unholstered handgun in his pocket.”

To me, that's too big of a safety risk just so a conceal and carry owner can fee safe on school grounds. If that's the state's law (or the private university) then you should respect that and not feel discriminated against because you are worried you might be violently raped in the school cafeteria.

And I looked up stats as well - over the past 15 years, 24% of gun attacks occurred in schools (which is what we are talking about). 21 of those incidents were disarmed by unarmed civilians.

[Edited on 12/5/2016 by porkchopbob]

@ porkchopbob

“Redfish, you have really only read what you want from what I've said and made giants leaps in interpretation.” - porkchopbob

So I was mistaken in stating that you prefer a victim of a violent crime on a college campus to be unarmed? It’s a simple question. Are you OK with the victim of a violent crime on a college campus being armed to protect himself/herself…yes or no? The answer is obvious. Not a lot of interpretation required. How is it a “giant leap”? Please explain how your support for a gun free zone on college campuses does not insure that a victim will be unarmed. If I have misinterpreted, and you are OK with the victim being armed, then just state this and I will gladly apologize.

“You simplify everything down to violent rape”. - porkchopbob

Really? How so? If I have given that impression then it was not my intent. My arguments are valid for any and all self-defense scenarios - rape, robbery, active shooter/knifer, etc. - insert whatever type of attack you want. Take your pick.

“Joe College might have target practice and taken a 4-hour required class…” - porkchopbob

And yet society, law enforcement agencies, etc. are OK with him interacting with his college friends at the Starbucks across the street from OSU. Why is that? If he is not competent enough to handle an intense situation (or avoid an accidental discharge, or whatever you come up with) then why should he be carrying a gun anywhere? So…again…if this argument is valid, then this is an argument against concealed carry by ANY private citizen ANYWHERE, it’s not just an argument against concealed carry on campus. No private citizen has had the same training as a LEO, and a 45 year old takes the same 4-hour class that Joe College does. Joe’s either competent enough to handle the intense situation or he is not…but the location of the intense situation is of zero significance. Your line of reasoning is either not valid, or if it is valid, then Joe shouldn’t be carrying at all…right? But if he has met all the requirements to have the permit, then the state’s law enforcement agency has deemed him competent to carry. Why can’t you just admit that you don’t like the idea of concealed carry at all…every line of reasoning you have attempted to use would be just as valid against ANY permit holder ANYWHERE, not just Joe College.

“It was heavily protested by students and faculty who don't feel safer.” - porkchopbob

And? So? Thank God protests and people’s feelings don’t determine rights. And permit holders don’t just FEEL safer, they ARE in fact safer. After the VT massacre, there was also a movement of students/faculty who do want to be able to defend themselves on campus. So some students/faculty do want it, some don’t. No surprise there.

“To me, that's too big of a safety risk…” - porkchopbob

This one is laughable. So four incidents of accidental discharge is too big of a risk compared to the risk of 7 knifed students, 32 people dead/17 wounded (VT), etc.? It is a very, very minor risk. Accidental discharges among permit holders are so rare that it is a statistically negligible risk. And in the vast majority of these cases (2 of your 4) it is only the permit holder that is injured. And the permit holder has already assumed/accepted any risks involved with carrying the gun anyway…right? So those 2 don’t count. And in the other 2 no one was seriously injured.

So…as for your 4 incidents…

“It is worth noting that, of the four negligent discharges at campus-carry colleges outside of Texas, two were the result of license holders showing their guns to someone else, which is a serious crime under Texas law. The other two were the result of license holders carrying their handguns in a pocket, unholstered, which is prohibited by school policy at most Texas universities.”

“This incident is unfortunate but in keeping with what we saw in both Colorado and Idaho, each of which experienced a single negligent discharge within two or three months of their statewide campus carry laws taking effect. For whatever reason, there seems to be a period of adjustment that follows the implementation of these laws. Thankfully, neither Colorado nor Idaho has seen a repeat of these incidents, and the overall track record of campus carry is still very strong. After a combined total of approximately 2,000 semesters of campus carry at almost 200 U.S. college campuses, this is only the fifth resulting accidental discharge, and not one of those incidents resulted in life-threatening injury to the license holder or serious injury to another person.”

So the best you can come up with is accidental discharge being a risk? But you don’t think being unarmed against a knife attack, an active shooter, or a rapist is a risk? A handful of accidental discharges resulting in no/minor injuries is a greater risk than dead or seriously injured students? Really? Geez....anti-gunner's logic never ceases to amaze/entertain.

[Edited on 12/6/2016 by Redfish7]

[Edited on 12/6/2016 by Redfish7]

[Edited on 12/6/2016 by Redfish7]

[Edited on 12/6/2016 by Redfish7]

But going back to your statement..."the university is able to have its policy. Don't like it? Dont' go there." So if the university had a policy that discriminated against same-sex marriage, you'd be cool with that...right? And if a same-sex couple did not like it...well, too bad...go somewhere else. The university's policy can trump the individual's rights? Can they discriminate against anyone they want to...or just gun owners?

I don't see how a gay couple getting married is equivalent to the potential dangers of college students carring around loaded guns. To even make that analogy speaks volumes. Why are gun owners so sensitive? It's not about your precious 2nd Amendment right. The university's policy is obviously about safety....obviously. You know that, I know that, we all know they have the safety of the students in mind when they made that policy, so no student gets drunk and careless and kills someone....obviously. So why even bring up discrimination? It makes no sense. It's not part of this story. I understand you might feel that way, but it's just not the case.

The argument is not about the university policy either. It's about whether more guns makes our communities safer or not. Some believe that arming everyone will enable to the good guys to stop the bad guys. Others believe that our society is neither evolved enough nor responsible enough to execute such a fantasy. Secondly, the odds of the 1 gun-toting good guy stopping an attack is slim to none. I read that only 36% of American households have a gun owner. Even if it's higher at 40%, how many of them would have the interest and do the work to get a carry permit? Out of that number, how many would actually carry a gun with them at all times? Out of that number, how many of them will stumble upon a crime unfolding in front of their eyes? Out of that number, how many would have the personality to confront and shoot? I think you get the point. If your agenda is to convince more Americans to buy guns and seek carry permits, I'd say you have a long tough uphill battle, and I'd wonder why someone would invite such a task on themselves.

So the best you can come up with is accidental discharge being a risk? But you don’t think being unarmed against a knife attack, an active shooter, or a rapist is a risk? A handful of accidental discharges resulting in no/minor injuries is a greater risk than dead or seriously injured students? Really? Geez....anti-gunner's logic never ceases to amaze/entertain.

Again, Redfish, you've cherry picked and read what you wanted to read and ignored what you didn't (rapist in the classroom is a big issue with you). We really aren't that far apart on this issue, but you'd rather be incredulous. I'm using real situations and statistics, you are still using anecdotal fantasy situations. Like a petulant child, you want to bring your gun everywhere no matter what, even though the law limits your ability to do so. Separate defined spaces don't matter to you, or the differences in spaces that we have defined are a complete mystery to you (a home vs schools, airports, The White House). Even the Governor of Georgia, a proud NRA supporter, declared college campuses as a no-gun sanctuary when he vetoed a conceal and carry bill. You are the only one having trouble understanding this. There is no proof that guns in classrooms make students safer, so this is about your feelings. I'm over repeating myself and you ignoring what you don't want to hear, you'd rather be smug than listen.

[Edited on 12/6/2016 by porkchopbob]

Why are gun owners so sensitive?

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

Why are gun owners so sensitive?

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

Wow, big huge difference. Homosexuals faced centuries of of discrimination (not to mention, violence) for who they are, and their basic freedoms as humans had long been denied.

Gun owners choose to own guns and their freedoms have been protected by the constitution since the birth of this nation. No one is coming for guns.

Has a gun owner ever been beaten and dragged by a car just for owning a gun or holding the hand of another gun owner? Everyone wants to play the victim card these days, and it's so trite.

[Edited on 12/7/2016 by porkchopbob]

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

This doesn't require a long hard thought process, and I won't hide behind giving another question as my answer. . The gay community poses zero threat to anyone, under any circumstance - that's why - that's the answer to your question. Now how about you do the same with my question, instead of answering a question with a question.

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

This doesn't require a long hard thought process, and I won't hide behind giving another question as my answer. . The gay community poses zero threat to anyone, under any circumstance - that's why - that's the answer to your question. Now how about you do the same with my question, instead of answering a question with a question.

I can tell you didn't think hard on that one, or much at all about the question.
You didn't think of any phrase used in the formation of our country, defined in one of the most important documents the Founding Fathers created? You didn't think of rights under other laws, ones that various states and municipalities had placed under restriction? You didn't think of laws enacted that placed them in danger?
You didn't think of incidents where the local law enforcement made sure that they weren't looking that way when something happened?

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

To answer your question:
Firearm ownership is a Constitutional right, not a state right, nor a local right. It's Federal Law.
There is no Constitutional provision to limit the number of firearms owned, the caliber of firearms owned, the rate of fire of those firearms, nor the type action used by those firearms.
But yet, we have people who want to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights by passing local and state "regulations" limiting the ownership of firearms, and in some places actually banning the ownership of firearms.
Until 1934, any citizen could purchase machine guns (Thompsons, BARs) from almost any hardware store.
The National Firearms act stopped that and put them in a "restricted purchase" category.
Want to know about the gun laws of New York City? Check out the following:

www.nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

How about laws that make you purchase only firearms approved by the lawmakers (one of whom was involved with gun smugglers selling the guns he didn't want citizens to own).

Here on this forum there are members that try to bully and demean gun owners. (Gasp)

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968 and others that have slowly tried to basically make firearm owners criminals? Laws about firearm accessories that have nothing to do about making a firearm more lethal, they just make them look "sinister" to some lawmakers (some have actually gone on TV and try to convince people that a flash hider is a silencer and will make the rifle fire faster).

The attempts to ban many handguns as "Saturday Night Specials" when no definition of what a Saturday night special was given.
The attempts to ban "Cop killer bullets" when the people trying to ban them couldn't tell you which ones they were trying to ban (hint: it was all of them, they just didn't list them until it came time for legislation. When the lists came out, they lost almost all backing)
The "classification" of a semi-automatic firearm as an "assault weapon" and the definitions of what will make any semi-automatic firearm an assault weapon (flash hider, folding stock, larger magazine, barrel shroud, pistol grip, et al).

So, give this thought, we have to be sensitive and be wary of attempts to restrict our Constitutional right. It won't happen in one fell swoop, but little bit by little bit if we aren't.

BoytonBrother and porkchopbob,

Here’s the bottom line…I believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun permits (students, faculty, visitors) should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. That’s it…that’s all I’m arguing for. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m not saying that every student and teacher should carry handguns on campus. It’s up to each individual to decide. But if Joe College has passed a training course, a shooting test, extensive state and federal background checks and is authorized to carry a gun virtually everywhere else, including at college parties that take place off campus… and since the evidence strongly suggests that licensed concealed carry will have no detrimental effect on college campuses…then there is absolutely no justification to deny licensed students, faculty, staff, or guests on a college campus the same measure of personal protection they enjoy throughout the rest of the state.

If you wish to deny this right, then the burden of proof is on you to show that granting this right will cause harm. But you have failed miserably to prove that Joe College will cause more harm on campus than he will at the college party across the street, or the mall, or the movie theater, etc. Either he is competent to carry in all those places, or competent to carry in none of them. His competency is not dependent on his location. So your argument either proves too much or it proves nothing at all. And since statistics suggest that allowing concealed carry on campus won’t hurt and might help, there is no legitimate reason not to allow it.

So up to this point all the rebuttals you (and others) have attempted to make have been nothing but unsubstantiated rubbish, arguments that prove too much (or prove nothing at all), fantasies about drunken students, etc. My apologies if that comes across as “smug”, but concealed handguns in the hands of those legally authorized to carry them are just simply not the menace/risk that you try to make them out to be. Your arguments have no basis in fact/reality. And if being passionate about defending human rights makes me “sensitive” then so be it. Playing the victim card?…haha, not hardly…just trying to make sure that myself and others don’t become victims, or at least not helpless/unarmed victims. Playing the victim card is a tactic of the gun fanatics…always quick to call for more gun legislation as soon as a tragedy strikes…exploit it…never let a good crisis go to waste…right? But you can’t really blame them...they have no leg to stand on, no rational arguments, no data to support their propaganda…when reason fails they pretty much have to resort to emotional rhetoric to try to sway people to their side. Do it for the kids…(or in your case, do it for the college students).

And you speak out of both sides of your mouth…for example, you seemed to take issue with the comments I made about you supporting victim disarmament, and yet you support gun bans on campus. The two are mutually exclusive. Either you are OK with the victim being armed or you are not…can’t have it both ways. If you support gun bans, then you are supporting victim disarmament whether you like it or not.

I chose the same-sex marriage analogy as an example because I know that they are one of the favored groups of the left/liberals…I just wanted to see if you would apply the same logic (i.e. university policy can trump individual rights) across the board, even to a group not favored by the left/liberals. I knew the answer even before I asked it. But just think…in your example, if the homosexual had armed himself, it’s a lot less likely that he gets dragged behind the truck…right?

But if that analogy doesn’t work for you…let’s try another one. What if statistics/data could prove that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist attacks, and young African American males are more likely to commit violent crimes using a gun…I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. If we can prove statistically that a young African American male is more likely to commit a violent crime than a concealed carry permit holder…and if you are really concerned about student safety on campus (not just pushing an anti-gun agenda)…and if you apply the same logic to everyone that you apply to the concealed carry permit holder…would you support a ban of young African American males (or Muslims) on college campuses to make it a safer environment?

And I realize that it is the law that is currently on the books (in some states). I am questioning the legitimacy of the law and hoping that it changes. In the meantime, I respect the laws and follow them. If I am ever in Ohio (or any state with similar gun bans), I would not carry while on a college campus. So I do respect the laws (in the sense that I obey them even while disagreeing with them)…but nothing wrong with trying to change people’s minds. Apparently people get their ideas about private citizens with guns from watching Death Wish movies (and CNN/MSNBC), so I guess I’ll have to get those movies to see what they’re about…lots of myths, false images and propaganda to combat.

And one of you said I was out of touch with what’s really happening. Not at all. I read somewhere recently that requests for concealed carry permits are at an all time high. Requests by women have gone up by 270%, and requests by African Americans are on the rise also. Guns designed specifically for concealment (and holsters/accessories) are currently the driving force for the gun/ammo/accessory industry. In fact, state law enforcement agencies and the gun manufacturers cannot even keep up with the demand. When I submitted the paperwork for my permit, it took almost 90 days for it to be issued due to the back log. Since I got my permit (a few years ago), I have purchased three handguns. Only one of those was immediately available at the time I purchased it. For one, I had to go on a waiting list and it was a couple of months before I got it. And for the other one, I had to order from a dealer in another state and have it shipped to a local dealer. Gun stores can't keep them stocked. Same with holsters…some custom holster makers have a 6-12 month turnaround time. So the popularity of concealed carry is definitely on the rise, and not going away.

And, yes, even among college students…do some homework…these guys can answer all your questions:
http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/

Sincerely,
Your smug, overly sensitive, out of touch, victimized, gun toting friend. 😉

[Edited on 12/8/2016 by Redfish7]

[Edited on 12/8/2016 by Redfish7]

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

Jerry, this is what I'm talking about. Nowhere did I say this, but it's how your mind interpreted it because of your sensitivities. You need to look at that. I have zero issue with gun owners. In fact, I intend to buy several when I finally get out of the city. But it is undeniable that guns are dangerous weapons by nature, especially when in the hands of irresponsible and incompetent people. And if a university chooses to ban guns on campus, they are within their right, and no American has to step foot on that campus if they want to maintain their 2nd Amendment right. You wrote a novel about what's in the Constitution, but you forgot these basic fundamentals - don't like it? Don't go on that campus. That's the America that you were just writing about. Secondly, it's silly to accuse people of discrimination when it's clearly about wanting safety. If gun owners feel that way, that's their own problem they need to deal with.

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

This doesn't require a long hard thought process, and I won't hide behind giving another question as my answer. . The gay community poses zero threat to anyone, under any circumstance - that's why - that's the answer to your question. Now how about you do the same with my question, instead of answering a question with a question.

I can tell you didn't think hard on that one, or much at all about the question.
You didn't think of any phrase used in the formation of our country, defined in one of the most important documents the Founding Fathers created? You didn't think of rights under other laws, ones that various states and municipalities had placed under restriction? You didn't think of laws enacted that placed them in danger?
You didn't think of incidents where the local law enforcement made sure that they weren't looking that way when something happened?

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

To answer your question:
Firearm ownership is a Constitutional right, not a state right, nor a local right. It's Federal Law.
There is no Constitutional provision to limit the number of firearms owned, the caliber of firearms owned, the rate of fire of those firearms, nor the type action used by those firearms.
But yet, we have people who want to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights by passing local and state "regulations" limiting the ownership of firearms, and in some places actually banning the ownership of firearms.
Until 1934, any citizen could purchase machine guns (Thompsons, BARs) from almost any hardware store.
The National Firearms act stopped that and put them in a "restricted purchase" category.
Want to know about the gun laws of New York City? Check out the following:

www.nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

How about laws that make you purchase only firearms approved by the lawmakers (one of whom was involved with gun smugglers selling the guns he didn't want citizens to own).

Here on this forum there are members that try to bully and demean gun owners. (Gasp)

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968 and others that have slowly tried to basically make firearm owners criminals? Laws about firearm accessories that have nothing to do about making a firearm more lethal, they just make them look "sinister" to some lawmakers (some have actually gone on TV and try to convince people that a flash hider is a silencer and will make the rifle fire faster).

The attempts to ban many handguns as "Saturday Night Specials" when no definition of what a Saturday night special was given.
The attempts to ban "Cop killer bullets" when the people trying to ban them couldn't tell you which ones they were trying to ban (hint: it was all of them, they just didn't list them until it came time for legislation. When the lists came out, they lost almost all backing)
The "classification" of a semi-automatic firearm as an "assault weapon" and the definitions of what will make any semi-automatic firearm an assault weapon (flash hider, folding stock, larger magazine, barrel shroud, pistol grip, et al).

So, give this thought, we have to be sensitive and be wary of attempts to restrict our Constitutional right. It won't happen in one fell swoop, but little bit by little bit if we aren't.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Exactly right. It is our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and that is not going to change.

Ever notice that the liberal gun control types never call for Obama to enforce Federal Law and go after the criminals and their illegal guns?

A few comments on our "constitutional" rights...

While I am certainly glad that we have the 2nd amendment, we must be careful not to look to it as the sole, or even primary, source of our rights. The right of self-defense is not merely our constitutional right. It is our natural, inalienable right…one which can neither be granted nor taken away by government. These rights had their origin in a source other than the government. Thomas Jefferson recognized this in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote about Nature's God as the Creator and thus the originator of our inalienable human rights. Humans possess inalienable rights “endowed by their Creator.” So our rights would (and always will) exist even if they were not recognized by the Constitution, and there may come a day when they are not. We must remember that any licensing, permits and bans are illegitimate attempts to convert our God given, individual rights into privileges granted to us by the government. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Self-defense is a right, not a privilege, and it shall not be infringed or interfered with. That being said…I do obey all the gun laws (even the ones I disagree with) and obtain/maintain all the required permits, etc.

[Edited on 12/8/2016 by Redfish7]

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

This doesn't require a long hard thought process, and I won't hide behind giving another question as my answer. . The gay community poses zero threat to anyone, under any circumstance - that's why - that's the answer to your question. Now how about you do the same with my question, instead of answering a question with a question.

I can tell you didn't think hard on that one, or much at all about the question.
You didn't think of any phrase used in the formation of our country, defined in one of the most important documents the Founding Fathers created? You didn't think of rights under other laws, ones that various states and municipalities had placed under restriction? You didn't think of laws enacted that placed them in danger?
You didn't think of incidents where the local law enforcement made sure that they weren't looking that way when something happened?

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

To answer your question:
Firearm ownership is a Constitutional right, not a state right, nor a local right. It's Federal Law.
There is no Constitutional provision to limit the number of firearms owned, the caliber of firearms owned, the rate of fire of those firearms, nor the type action used by those firearms.
But yet, we have people who want to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights by passing local and state "regulations" limiting the ownership of firearms, and in some places actually banning the ownership of firearms.
Until 1934, any citizen could purchase machine guns (Thompsons, BARs) from almost any hardware store.
The National Firearms act stopped that and put them in a "restricted purchase" category.
Want to know about the gun laws of New York City? Check out the following:

www.nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

How about laws that make you purchase only firearms approved by the lawmakers (one of whom was involved with gun smugglers selling the guns he didn't want citizens to own).

Here on this forum there are members that try to bully and demean gun owners. (Gasp)

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968 and others that have slowly tried to basically make firearm owners criminals? Laws about firearm accessories that have nothing to do about making a firearm more lethal, they just make them look "sinister" to some lawmakers (some have actually gone on TV and try to convince people that a flash hider is a silencer and will make the rifle fire faster).

The attempts to ban many handguns as "Saturday Night Specials" when no definition of what a Saturday night special was given.
The attempts to ban "Cop killer bullets" when the people trying to ban them couldn't tell you which ones they were trying to ban (hint: it was all of them, they just didn't list them until it came time for legislation. When the lists came out, they lost almost all backing)
The "classification" of a semi-automatic firearm as an "assault weapon" and the definitions of what will make any semi-automatic firearm an assault weapon (flash hider, folding stock, larger magazine, barrel shroud, pistol grip, et al).

So, give this thought, we have to be sensitive and be wary of attempts to restrict our Constitutional right. It won't happen in one fell swoop, but little bit by little bit if we aren't.

I don't think YOU are stable enough to own a gun, your guns should be confiscated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Yea, right. This coming from a guy still undergoing court ordered psychiatric therapy.

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

Jerry, this is what I'm talking about. Nowhere did I say this, but it's how your mind interpreted it because of your sensitivities. You need to look at that. I have zero issue with gun owners. In fact, I intend to buy several when I finally get out of the city. But it is undeniable that guns are dangerous weapons by nature, especially when in the hands of irresponsible and incompetent people. And if a university chooses to ban guns on campus, they are within their right, and no American has to step foot on that campus if they want to maintain their 2nd Amendment right. You wrote a novel about what's in the Constitution, but you forgot these basic fundamentals - don't like it? Don't go on that campus. That's the America that you were just writing about. Secondly, it's silly to accuse people of discrimination when it's clearly about wanting safety. If gun owners feel that way, that's their own problem they need to deal with.

Your statement in your response on 12/7/16 " The gay community poses no threat to anybody, under any circumstances . . . , but you continue to talk about "irresponsible students" having firearms on campus.
Maybe you forgot about the "Pink Pistols" group. Gays against laws that keep them from carrying firearms for protection. Sometimes they do need protection you know. There are still some people out there that don't like homosexuals. Would you deny that protection to a homosexual just because he was on a campus? Is it OK for someone to club them to death, forcibly rape them, drag them behind a car in the parking lot, or do any other type of bodily harm just because they cross a line on the sidewalk?
To paraphrase a line commonly used by gun grabbers to help pass their legislation--"If it saves one life, it's worth the compromise."

Also, you do know that almost every gun restriction that has passed has been a form of discrimination?

To answer your question with a question, and think long and hard before you answer, why were homosexuals so sensitive about their marriage rights?

This doesn't require a long hard thought process, and I won't hide behind giving another question as my answer. . The gay community poses zero threat to anyone, under any circumstance - that's why - that's the answer to your question. Now how about you do the same with my question, instead of answering a question with a question.

I can tell you didn't think hard on that one, or much at all about the question.
You didn't think of any phrase used in the formation of our country, defined in one of the most important documents the Founding Fathers created? You didn't think of rights under other laws, ones that various states and municipalities had placed under restriction? You didn't think of laws enacted that placed them in danger?
You didn't think of incidents where the local law enforcement made sure that they weren't looking that way when something happened?

Now we know that you think gun owners are a threat to people. Why do you feel that way?

To answer your question:
Firearm ownership is a Constitutional right, not a state right, nor a local right. It's Federal Law.
There is no Constitutional provision to limit the number of firearms owned, the caliber of firearms owned, the rate of fire of those firearms, nor the type action used by those firearms.
But yet, we have people who want to deny citizens their Constitutional Rights by passing local and state "regulations" limiting the ownership of firearms, and in some places actually banning the ownership of firearms.
Until 1934, any citizen could purchase machine guns (Thompsons, BARs) from almost any hardware store.
The National Firearms act stopped that and put them in a "restricted purchase" category.
Want to know about the gun laws of New York City? Check out the following:

www.nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

How about laws that make you purchase only firearms approved by the lawmakers (one of whom was involved with gun smugglers selling the guns he didn't want citizens to own).

Here on this forum there are members that try to bully and demean gun owners. (Gasp)

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968 and others that have slowly tried to basically make firearm owners criminals? Laws about firearm accessories that have nothing to do about making a firearm more lethal, they just make them look "sinister" to some lawmakers (some have actually gone on TV and try to convince people that a flash hider is a silencer and will make the rifle fire faster).

The attempts to ban many handguns as "Saturday Night Specials" when no definition of what a Saturday night special was given.
The attempts to ban "Cop killer bullets" when the people trying to ban them couldn't tell you which ones they were trying to ban (hint: it was all of them, they just didn't list them until it came time for legislation. When the lists came out, they lost almost all backing)
The "classification" of a semi-automatic firearm as an "assault weapon" and the definitions of what will make any semi-automatic firearm an assault weapon (flash hider, folding stock, larger magazine, barrel shroud, pistol grip, et al).

So, give this thought, we have to be sensitive and be wary of attempts to restrict our Constitutional right. It won't happen in one fell swoop, but little bit by little bit if we aren't.

I don't think YOU are stable enough to own a gun, your guns should be confiscated.

You are sooo funny when you are frustrated. When are you going to start your comedy tour?

Jerry, I'm sure you feel it as discrimination but not everyone does. Even if you want to break it down to a technicality, and even if we will agree that the technicality does make it discrimination, it still should not upset or affect somebody. But it does affect you. And I think that's the main question because these kinds of stories are never going to go away. It's not about discrimination to some gun owners that I know, but it is for a lot of people like yourself who feel that way. Isn't the better solution to just figure out a way to not allow it to offend you? I think that's what liberals need to do about Trump.

Jerry, I'm sure you feel it as discrimination but not everyone does. Even if you want to break it down to a technicality, and even if we will agree that the technicality does make it discrimination, it still should not upset or affect somebody. But it does affect you. And I think that's the main question because these kinds of stories are never going to go away. It's not about discrimination to some gun owners that I know, but it is for a lot of people like yourself who feel that way. Isn't the better solution to just figure out a way to not allow it to offend you? I think that's what liberals need to do about Trump.

You still don't get it, do you.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20030115/the-racist-history-of-handgun-bans-in-a

Check why most "gun control laws" were put into use.