Best
370 Comments
Post
  • #13
    !
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    this my friend is the 2nd amendment. we don't need 'well regulated militias' on campus.
  • #21
    !
    @dances-weebles Perhaps you missed the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. This is an INDIVIDUAL right.

    How is one prohibited from bearing arms on campus? To deny this is to deny one the right to bear arms. Wouldn't that be an "infringement"?
  • #30
    !
    @dances-weebles These are not a combination, the right to bear arms is an individual right, so if a militia is needed, the people are ready.
  • #37
    !
    Yes! Yes! A basic right is self-protection, be it from crackhead, loony with semi-automatic in the movie theater, or Government tyranny. The Founding Fathers knew this, and protected this individual right with the 2nd Amendment. If only the gun-grabbers, sheep, and other wannabe victims would wake up and realize this, we'd all be better off. This is a positive step towards our reclamation of our Freedom.
  • #46
    !
    @dances-weebles if the 2nd amendment only applied to militias you would have a point. But the people have an individual right.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    Because 'Gun Free Zones' have got such a well-documented history of success, no doubt. The logic being employed by the opponents to this make me think some people shouldn't be teaching or in charge of who gets hired as a teacher. In the past, ANYONE with a grudge against (a) student(s) can and/or (a) professor(s) could and would take a weapon to school and massacre to his heart's content until armed authorities responded. Now, they will think twice thinking if they do that, they may be shot before they get a single shot off. Pishers and Moaners should read how 15,595 active duty and retired law enforcement professionals, members of PoliceOne, feel about this and other gun-related issues. Poll taken March 2013, with 15,595 officers, detectives, chiefs, deputies, retired LEOs responding.
    www.policeandguncontrol.blogspot.com
  • #40
    !
    @GedankPol Wow, those sign-holders are very scary with thinking like that. But, some people just get out of bed with the desire to remain victim, sheep, slave, and lemming. The mass media loves these guys. Washington loves these guys. The criminals love these guys. Me, not so much.
  • #139
    !
    I am sure that some people at Virginia Tech wish they had weapons around.
    The only thing GUN FREE ZONES do is tell the nuts where they are most safe to attack.
  • #199
    !
    Another reason most police don't need to be armed as well,in fact in the rest of the developed world most police are unarmed, except in a few circumstances.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Citizens should not have to check their Constitutional rights at any door. Imagine a call for eliminating the 1st Amendment on college campuses. How do you think academia would react?
  • #88
    !
    If you think most colleges have not eliminated free speech if it is from the right you are wrong. You can say anything on campus that the college agrees with. Anything else is restricted to a 4x4 square in some secret hidden place.
    There is an organization called FIRE that fights this kind of stuff. Unfortunately they are not large enough to get rid of it.
  • #194
    !
    They already are like that. In high school swearing will get you suspended. If you draw something and it gets interpreted in the shape of a gun then wham suspended or kicked out!
  • #369
    !
    The First Amendment is already dead on most College Campuses. Students have a right to freely express their opinion as long as it's Liberal and NOT if it's conservative. And forget about any activity that expresses or promotes the Christian Faith. That will get you kicked out of most Colleges and Universities today.
  • #47
    !
    Excellent! What people fail to realize is what a carry permit holder goes thru to get it.
    1. FBI background check
    2. Fingerprinted & investigated by local authorities
    3. No known mental impairment
    4. No convictions for domestic violence, drugs, alcohol or felonies of any type

    That says a lot towards the character of the permit holder.

    Makes you wonder about non carry holders. Employees, co-workers, friends, neighbors, teachers, fellow students and even your fellow liberals.
  • #61
    !
    @Medicinebow ...absolutely! We value the trust that's been placed on us. And FYI, I have a terrible opinion of law enforcement. They are drug and alcohol abusers, child molesters, spousal abusers, rapist, tiny peckered people with serious esteem issues
  • #78
    !
    @9MileTrucking Sorry, not all of them for sure. You must take the 3% who are not into account. Say your sorry now.
  • #241
    !
    @9MileTrucking
    Just as it is ridiculous to judge all gun owners because of a few, so is it to judge law enforcement in the same manner.
  • #14
    !
    It is funny how all the fear mongers keep saying this will turn into a blood bath, yet ignore that this is not the first state to allow it. Every time there is a CC win, they keep parroting and predicting the blood bath, but it never comes.
  • #97
    !
    @ Yank:

    The fear mongering anti gun liberal only know how to repeat the same boring emotional rebuttal because they haven't any logic backing their claim.

    Irony: We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
  • #26
    !
    Surely they don't care. Most of the school killers want to end up dead, and do in fact, but only after killing some teachers and fellow students. Your solution does not prevent this.
  • #45
    !
    @C_Lassico But it can limit the deaths. Ask the hundred or so people who didn't die at the New Life Church shooting because of a CHL, or look at the recent shooting at Arapaho High with a SRO, or a number of others where people with guns stopped the killer.
  • #55
    !
    You are right in a way. But having many armed people around will increase the risk of new shootings as well. The problem being that you can't really see if a person is a defensive or an offensive citizen.
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    The only mass shootings that have occurred have been on "gun free campuses".
    You have not one shred of proof that CCW permit holders are mass murderers.
    You should be happy those who followed the rules and got permits to carry are now allowed to, they will provide yet another layer of protection for those who would prefer to hide under tables or throw their hands up in surrender. You should pray the military vets attending these schools have CC permits, as most of them run TOWARDS a threat instead of people like you who hide and cower in the corners.
  • #41
    !
    @jwmort I think he was being sarcastic. I think we are all on the same page. And that page is the Bill of Rights.
  • #44
    !
    @jwmort No problem.

    This site needs a sarcasm button as many of us use it on here. I kind of understand many of the folks on here and their style.
  • R Load more replies

  • #122
    !
    More Guns make criminals think twice about using them against others! Any criminal can get a gun even if it is illegal. They do not obey the laws so gun control does not work. Drug use is illegal yet an addict will always find drugs!!!!!
  • #270
    !
    I do not know if u ask me the war on drugs has been a total failure. They should legalize them but they won't, they make too much money keeping them illegal. If u legalize them no more DEA, less police and you will save billions of dollars. Drugs should be legal and taxed so that u would cut crime in half. You do need laws but any laws that go against the Constitution is ridiculous. If u look at all the places were they have gun control the murder rate has skyrocketed. Chicago is just one example
  • #319
    !
    @gzuckier I do not know if u ask me the war on drugs has been a total failure. They should legalize them but they won't, they make too much money keeping them illegal. If u legalize them no more DEA, less police and you will save billions of dollars. Drugs should be legal and taxed so that u would cut crime in half. You do need laws but any laws that go against the Constitution is ridiculous. If u look at all the places were they have gun control the murder rate has skyrocketed. Chicago is just one example
  • #114
    !
    Yes, but especially in the crap-hole state of Idaho.

    Salt Lake City has armed security in just about every fast food place, restaurant, and motel in town.

    I couldn't help but keep asking, is the city under assault?

    The prison is right next to the Interstate so all can see the inmates serving time, as if a warning to those driving by what awaits them if they cross over the line.

    No wonder the state has highest prescription mind-altering drug use in the nation. Religion is biggest contributor to it all.
  • #182
    !
    Last time I looked Salt Lake City was in Utah. Boise is the capital and largest city of Idaho. What is your problem with religion?
  • #207
    !
    @c789cc
    Oops, state mix up! Thanks.

    All I know about Idaho is that a Republican President wrongfully executed a woman there with a sniper who shot her in the head while her husband watched. And Coeur d'Alene is one of most beautiful places in the nation.

    No problem with religion that makes sense.
  • #76
    !
    Back when I was in college, there were no laws against possession of a firearm on campus. My college however had a policy against it, and one could be kicked out of school for it. Well, they had their agenda and I had mine. I kept a .45 in my room from my sophomore year on. Believe me, I was not the only one on campus with a gun.

    2 points to be learned here: 1) Rules (or laws) against possession have all of the effect of a fart in a gale. To think otherwise is to be delusional. 2) Possession of firearms on campus does not mean the Wild West will prevail. We never had an incident during the time I was there, within the memory of those who were there, nor did I ever read of one after I left.
  • #29
    !
    Another extremely poorly worded poll indicating how bias and polls are related. I don't care if there are more or less guns anywhere, I believe in the 2nd amendment and the people have a right to posses arms where ever they go in the US.

    Who cares what the university president says about this, it's a constitutional right?
  • #264
    !
    So if you buy an appliance and the guy who comes to install it looks pretty shady and keeps eyeing your wife and/or your jewelry and/or your wife's jewelry it's cool if he's got a gun under them coveralls because that's the Second Amendment in action.
    Anyway, you of course will be totally alert (assuming you're home) and have a firefight in the kitchen should he do anything dumb, like pull a screwdriver out of a pocket.
  • #320
    !
    @gzuckier You don't seem to understand how CCW laws work. You're allowed to carry in public, but if you enter a private residence, you must have the owner's permission to carry there. So if the shady-looking appliance installer is carrying under his coveralls without asking if you are cool with that, he's in violation of the terms of his CCW.

    All of which is begging the question, however. Do you really think that the shady appliance installer would give a rip about a law prohibiting concealed carry if he was willing to rob, murder or rape someone?'Cause it seems to me that someone who isn't afraid to break the laws prohibiting such violent crimes probably isn't too concerned about adding an illegal concealed carry charge to their record, just sayin'...
  • #326
    !
    @gzuckier What a pathetically typical pile of crap from a leftist. AK has already indicated how your over the top fantasy is ridiculous. But you are generating significant laughter, are you actually chicken little?
  • #22
    !
    Well THAT took long enough. Now if everyone would see the light and let grown adults protect themselves unhindered by government, colleges would be a safer place.
  • #2
    !
    Some say that if there had been an armed instructor or student present at any one of the facilities that have experienced gun violence, it could have been stopped. By the same token, it could have turned into a much more dangerous shootout.
  • #20
    !
    I have no evidence and don't feel like researching to back my statement up but if I had to take a guess I'd think most school shootings only stop because the shooter had to reload or ran out of ammo. Schools have no real protection.
  • #80
    !
    How? Someone is shooting back at the people intent on killing as many as they can. Please explain how that can make it worse.
  • #261
    !
    No, this is cool. Now, instead of having to organize a school shooting yourself and get all shot up at the end, all you have to do is shout "Gun" in a crowded classroom and point frantically and vaguely somewhere. Preferably when the lights are down for a video or something. Preferably pointing at a black kid or kids, preferably wearing hoodies. Especially preferably if they're taking a phone or something out of their pocket.
    Just make sure to duck out the back door before everybody starts saving each other.
  • #273
    !
    @CritJ

    No, they usually kill themselves. Me, I'd be fine if someone took them out at the beginning of the event rather than waiting for the shooter to do it to themselves when the cops close in or the ammo runs low.

    BTW, a reasonable reload time is about 1.5 seconds. 3 if you haven't practiced for a few minutes.

    Schools have zero protection...if you don't count little stickers on the doors and laws that they tend to disregard completely. Locked doors?? Really?? Does anyone actually believe a bullet won't penetrate the glass? Schools are logical targets to someone seeking an emotional response. They get to make their claim to fame with no possibility of failure.

    Those so opposed to firearms.....think about why police stations are never attacked. It would certainly be that blaze of glory the attackers seek. And doomed to fail before reaching the door.
  • #284
    !
    @gzuckier You remember this is Idaho right? The 2nd largest contingency of the KKK in the U.S. Pointing it at black kids would probably get you an award. LOL
  • #202
    !
    Politicians will do anything to get re-elected. Why the surprise?
    I fail to see how carrying guns on campus has nothing to do with "a regulated militia". Militias are already in existence and are state and federal government regulated. The right to bear arms as written back them refers to single shot rifles and pistols at best, not automatic weapons and nuclear rockets?
  • #275
    !
    The meaning is common battlefield small arms. Review the Federalist Papers, they explain many of the reasons for specific amendments.

    Your logic....apply it to the First Amendment. All they had in 1787 was newspapers and books for "press". But today we include radio, televison, cellular comminications and the internet. Are you ok with freedom of speech being prohibited or restricted because the internet wasn't in existance in 1787?

    The notion is not to arm militias, it's to arm the people against militias. Armies are what a tyrant uses to suppress a population. It's inpossible to do so to an armed population.

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

    Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
  • #291
    !
    @Eric_S
    Every fool who feeds a fantasy that somehow, citizens owning weaons wil even cause a hiccup should the Government REALLY decide to take over......well, we'll all giggle after even the most poorly-equipped local police force perp-walks you out of your house, or wheels your dead body out, as it plays on all the major news stations. Every city and town's police force combat-level training and equipment makes ANY armed citizen's hope (or even a group of "well-armed" citizens) of "stopping goverment tyranny" or takeover a pipe dream. The cops will squash you like a bug, and you'll be just another segment on "Cops". Yeah, I like the movie "Red Dawn" as much as everyone.......but having the ability to separate fantasy from reality is an important skill, especially if you are of voting age. Your 1st Amendment right is what keeps your freedom and liberty in place; your guns and any heroic dreams of being able to "defend yourself" against government takeover ended a quick death many, many decades ago.......when they were eliminated by the gross weapons capability and resource advantage even your local Andy Griffith P.D. possesses. One phone call for backup........and you are toast.
  • #306
    !
    @Unfit2serve

    Yeah, because a population has never raised arms against a governmental force and prevailed. Except for out own revolution......more recently Libya.....East Germany back in the late 80's. Yeah, you're right.

    Think this through past the rhectoric you have failed to actually examine. You mention the 1st Amendment. Have you EVER wondered why the RTKB (right to keep and bear) was placed second? I'm sure we can agree, that out of the few dozen plus amendments, second is a high ranking. Directly after they recognized our inalienable rights to speech, press, religion, assembly and grievance they assured our right to arms. Why? Seriously, why would they do that??

    Here's a hint. To allow the people to defend the first. Now, before you go off on some rant or uneducated assumption of the actual reasoning, go read up on the Federalist Papers. They go into great detail as to the reasoning for the basics of our Constitution.
  • R Load more comments...
Post