Really?! I'm sorry, but how do you know they were 'gang-bangers' much less carrying? Maybe it was a guy who got a thrill out of intimidating people like you. I just don't see how having a gun would have helped........
All right, I'll wade in....... I have a couple of more pratical concerns about weapons on a college campus. As TBone already pointed out in his 'Devils Advocate' piece, I saw a lot of guys do some pretty stupid things while at college and adding guns to the mix could have made things much worse in several situations. This is my biggest problem. I am not familiar with every state's CCW laws but if many let eveyone without a record or who are not certified crazy (and that can be pretty hard to certify) carry, that would include a lot of morons/idiots/assholes and assorted others that I would not want carrying anythign more than a pencil. I can see more than a few ready room commandos that would arm themselves up and would be ready to pull their weapon out at any opportunity. Even if they are not idiots I would also be concerned about the level of training that these people have gone through. As far as I know, the biggest requirement that states have for a CCW is a gun safety course, if that. But how many people make the investment in money and time to really learn how to conduct themsleves in a situation like a school shooting? I would argue it is very few. I know there are a few on the board who have made the investment and have the training, but for eveyone on this board who is a competent shooter I could probably point out 10 wannabes like the mall security idiot over at the gun forums (whether he was real or not, I have met some like him). What happens when an untrained student startes trading fire with a shooter? How would that help if he can't even hit the guy? I know some of you might think it was the lesser of two evils, but the shooter has the advantage of surprise, knowledge and if history is a lesson, firepower. Surprise was on this guys side and he killed two cops, among others, before he went down: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/national/main3805672.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3805672 What makes you think an untrained student would do any better? Some of you failed to point out in the Appalachian shooting was that the two guys who supposedly stopped the shooter (it was not clear they played a factor) were both former cops. Another simple but obvious concern, how would you distingush yourself from a shooter when the cops walk in ready for battle? You would probably look just like the shooter. Just a thought....... One more thing, for those who want to openly carry a weapon, that is just a bit too much. You are not: -A cop -A cowboy -Walker, Texas Ranger So why the hell would you want to walk around like one? I think it could easily be used as an intimidation tactic by students or teachers, look at my reference to the idiots I mentioned above. I think it would do little to increase safety and would just tell a shooter who to target first when he opens fire. Sorry, but just because you have a tiny tool doesn't give you the right to openly carry.......
Flash, I understand your concerns, but how does one get around that pesky 2nd amendment? Lets compare this to the 1st. We have plenty of people who I think are not even remotely close to qualified to speak their opinion on the issues of the day, yet they get a national platform each and every night. Some, including myself, believe that this speech can be just as dangerous as an untrained person trying to defend themselves. Why is this right defended so intensely (and rightly so) while other rights are not? Like I said, I completely know where you are coming from and share similar concerns, but I don't see how one could make laws constitutionally correct.
Several of the rights protected by the First Amendment have restrictions on them in some form or another that have passed Constitutional muster.
True enough, I am not either of those...but, I am a law abiding guy, who resides in a state which allows open carry. I rarely carry openly because of the target factor you mentioned. And, um, sorry about your tiny tool. "Even if they are not idiots I would also be concerned about the level of training that these people have gone through. As far as I know, the biggest requirement that states have for a CCW is a gun safety course, if that. " Every state requires a bit more than a gun safety course, if that. Come out to Nevada, I will take you through my course for free. "Another simple but obvious concern, how would you distingush yourself from a shooter when the cops walk in ready for battle? You would probably look just like the shooter. Just a thought....... " I can't speak for all instructors, but I tell my guys if they are involved in a shooting and cops are at the scene....unload and safe your weapon (when feasible) and put your hands on your head while in a kneeling position (with the gun as far away as practical). What happens when an untrained student startes trading fire with a shooter? (could be that he is trained...why assume the worst? could be that the shooter is stopped)How would that help if he can't even hit the guy? I know some of you might think it was the lesser of two evils, but the shooter has the advantage of surprise,(not if he is expecting his victims to act as sheep) knowledge and if history is a lesson, firepower.
Well Doc, there are exceptions to every rule.......I was thinking more of the the guys who would do so on campus. P.S. Note to self.......never piss off the guy who does your flight physical......
The 2nd Amendment is what it is, just like the "other 9" .... and it's REALLY clear, in spite of the nattering class of non-believing or ignorant citizens who would marginalize it. Read the Founding Fathers on the subject of guns and/or "gun control" and the "right to bear" if you have any lingering doubts as to the value and rationale of firearms in our society .... Those who would put "qualifications" .... or .... "common sense interpretations" ... or "reasonable restrictions" .... or otherwise restrict the ability of law-abiding Americans to keep, possess, or "bear" arms according to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is a fraud and a hypocrite. Or worse ... We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country. Now THAT'S UNreasonable ... Believe it.
Okay, but to be fair, did the founding fathers anticipate automatic weapons and all the advances in firearms technology that have happened in the last couple of decades? As someone else pointed out, other amendments (including the 1st) have certain restrictions on them as well. You can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, but the fundamental intent of the amendment remains intact. Does having to wait 3 days to have your gun, or forbidding mentally ill people from owning a gun (which is one of those 20,000 gun laws you seem to find so appalling) really impede upon your right to protect yourself? Of course some of the restrictions are debatable, but citing the fact that there are a large number of laws, while not sorting through what those laws are and acknowledging that some of them are pretty damn reasonable seems a bit...disingenuous. Or are you really opposed to any and every law pertaining to gun ownership, possession, and use.
The oft cited "screaming fire in a crowded theater" is illegal because that single act causes a great chance of injury to others. The act of keeping and bearing arms has no direct immediate harm on anyone else. The act of shooting someone is illegal.
Anyone who objects to EVERY gun law is being foolish. You're right. There is no reason for a wife beater or sociopath to have a gun. Or someone with dementia. But the problem is, people try to pass "reasonable" gun laws because they want to control what others do. And have succeeded far too often. Tell me how banning a 15-round magazine as opposed to a 10-round magazine is going to reduce violence when the bullets still come out one at a time. That's the one place where the far left and far right bend around behind the back of common sense and meet in some kind of perverse marriage of busybodiness . . . they both know what's best for me better than I do myself. Only the right wants to control my liquor cabinet and bedroom, while the left wants to control my gun safe and my doctor's appointments!
Right, but the point remains that there are laws and limitations put on things covered by the amendments.
Of course not -- don't be ridiculous. Criminals, dullards, women (just kidding ) and the mentally deficient should NOT have access to firearms ... No ... again, of course not. And again -- you are just being ridiculous. But they DID consider the 2nd Amendment in the light of the best, most advanced firearms of the day .... didn't they??? As with everything; it's all relative. And they were amazingly prescient in their views on most things -- that's why they are still with us today ... those angry, ol' white men. Soooo-o-o-o-o-o ... riddle me this: Why would one suppose that the Founding Fathers were "out of touch" on THIS amendment -- "automatic weapons", blah, blah, blah ..... but not the rest?? You are being specious in your argument. Do you even KNOW how many "automatic" weapons have been used in the commission of a crime according to the FBI stats -- Hollywood notwithstanding -- since the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934??? You DO KNOW what that was all about, yea-as??? Suggestion: you are starting to come across as a well-intentioned fool where it pertains to firearms, legal ownership, and the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you do some "stupid study" prior to commenting further -- you know; to save yourself from further embarrassment.
With respect to the 1st and 2nd amendments, it is funny how the very same people have such a different approach to their interpretation. According to them almost any action is " speech " and should not be curtailed in any way. Want a $100,000 govt. grant to paint Jesus as a Hell's Angel running a meth lab, sure no problem, its protected speech. The wise men that framed the constitution would be proud of us, they wanted everyone to be able to say anything at anytime, right? Now it comes to the 2nd amendment, even though it plainly says that we have the right to " keep and bear arms " we all know that they didn't mean the regular people, just the militia, so it will be fine if we pass a few laws that " clear up " what they really meant to say. If the left in the country treated the 2nd amendment as they do the 1st, we would all be given the weapon of our choice by the state.
Gee Flash, having had most of my cousins in gangs (and some jail time), two close friends in high school living the gang life, myself living and growing up in gang-infested central California ...I think I can ID hardcore bangers and wannabes by now. When they start kicking your face in, as they are apt to do from my experience. It's a pack mentality, many against few. If they have knives, a gun trumps that. If they have guns, I'll let you be the one w/o a gun instead of me. You honestly tell me you'd rather have nothing when confronted with an unavoidable situation such as that? You've done all you could to walk away, avoid confrontation, but yet it finds you anyway? Would you execute a sortie into a MEZ w/o SEAD? You're telling me essentially that I should be a sheep in the face of these thugs and delinquents? That's what it sounds like to me. I barely escaped the peer pressure in my youth to "belong" to a gang myself. I got lucky. One cousin cleaned himself up (albeit a bit later in life) and is doing fine now as well, but he has a permanent record. I'm going to weigh in with A4s, your rapid and reactive gun control infused remark lacked the tone and possibility that I actually may know what I'm talking about. I made no such preconceived judgments about you...
Well, good for you for not falling into that.......but shouldn't you be using your super-sleuth detective skills as a cop? You only have one side of the story. Maybe he was a furniture delivery guy enjoying a day out with his fellow wannabes and decided to scare a few people. Like I said, how the heck did you know they were probably armed, or even gang types? I was the SEAD.....and I would just avoid it in a flying bus like an EP-3 or RJ...... My word, what am I to do now?! I guess I will have to throw up in my hands in surrender..........Or maybe not.
I know you're SEAD, that's why I put the reference in there. I would NEVER go anywhere near most things being HVAA, I get intercepted enough when I'm just doing SRO. I was speaking from my experience as senior offensive duty officer (SODO) on the AOC Ops floor having worked myself up from DT Chief and ad hoc'ing DT/TST packages... NO ONE is going to convince you to change your viewpoint on this, just as NO ONE is going to get me change mine. You have many valid points and concerns about the CCW public. But your soap box attitude and short-sighted-antagonistic posts prevent civil discussion and serve to only trigger A4s' and the likes rebuttals. I too am concerned about those Rambo-idiot-glory-seeking types as well. You just assumed that I was one of those. Most of us with CCW aren't "seeking a fire fight", it's the last thing I want. I can't think of a spot on analogy, but the closest thing is that we should take all the ejection seats out of our aircraft because it's just encouraging x-sport thrill seeker types to pull the handle and going for a ride or encouraging us to throw jets away because the pilot's can simply give up and punch. My gun is the very last resort. I will walk away, let myself get punched (if I believe that that's all that going to happen), get verbally abused, trash thrown on, etc. Rather live with all that than having to shot someone. But I only got one me, and one family. I'll do what I need to.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that the Bill of Rights involves individual rights - not state rights/militia. Nothing about throwing in/out. Poor wording on my behalf.
As someone who was termed a "wife beater" on nothing less than an accusation, and treated as a convicted felon by the legal system as a result, I say you need to look at who they call "X Y AND Z". Because, if you own guns, the other side will call you demented if they can. Gun control laws are not about guns, they are about control. A wise man has said that many times.
To be fair, the first time I shot a 44, I realized it was more gun than I could handle as a woman. It seems to me that you are the one embarrassing yourself with nonsensical posts like this one, so perhaps we will once again have to agree to disagree. Frankly, it is difficult to refute much of this post, since much of it seems only marginally coherent and you seem to be arguing with points I never made. I get that you love your guns and you aren't a fan of mine. You aren’t the first to hold either of those views. But really, I can't for the life of me figure out what it is in my posts that has you so worked up. I've stated that it is a bit silly to suggest that any law pertaining to guns is unreasonable is, well, unreasonable. It seems we actually agree on that point. Do you think I'm saying that the FF (and the people who voted for the Bill of Rights) made the 2nd amendment flawed, but that the others are all sound and don’t ever need re-interpretation for today's conditions? That's what I get from your post, but not only did I not say that, I don't believe it. Maybe you would understand me a bit better if I spoke your language. Let me know if adding a bunch of random dashes and unnecessary ellipses will help. The founding fathers could not have foreseen a lot things. There is that pesky issue of the constitution not calling for an Air Force, for example. Even the most strict of constructionists will agree that there are certain judgment calls and adaptations that need to be made as times change. It has nothing to do with being out of touch. I just wonder if the FF would have felt like I should be able to cruise through a shopping mall with a 50 cal rifle and a laser sight. And maybe they would have been fine with it. Regardless, I feel like putting reasonable (and that's where the issue is, of course) restrictions on owning guns doesn't realistically impede anyone's right to defend themselves. Beyond that, I really don't know what else to say since I'm still trying to make sense of much of your post.
Point of order: The USAF was handled quite well under the Army, until they got their panties in a bind and wanted to be their own service. IMHO they should still be the USAAF not USAF. Do we have the "Naval Air Force" as a separate service from the USN. NO. Further proof that the AF is whiny. I now cease the threadjack and return you to your regularly scheduled libtard whining and reasonable retort from the wiser members.
Please ... I've been insulted by experts before; and you ain't one ... and don't try to patronize me -- you lose all credibility w/me and it only puts you at a disadvantage in any discussion with me. I don't embarrass myself -- haven't for decades -- you'll have to do better than that ... but I won't hold my breath. You can't "speak my language" and I have no desire to "understand" your point of view; heard it a 1,000 times and it's always the same. And it's always wrong. Sooo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o -- why try?? Like you said -- we disagree. Go chat with someone who wants to listen to your uninformed prattle ... .... Well, that's YOUR opinion, and of course, it's sadly ignorant when considering the question: i.e., it's wrong. Who gets to determine what's "reasonable" -- what with >20,000 largely redundant and often ineffective laws already on the books ??? That should be "reasonable" enough for most "reasonable" people, don't you think??? I guess we need more "reasonableness" to combat the lawlessness that you fear "might" emanate from the law abiding citizenry who choose to arm themselves. Why?? Whatever for??? You don't know what you're talking about and dwell in the land of emotion and wishful thinking. We disagree; let's just leave it at that, yea-as??? I'm really NOT going to "argue" with you, 'cause you don't know what you're talkin' about and it's a waste of my time. Be on your way, young lady. Nothing to look at here ...
