Texas to allow guns on college campuses.

[Kielan]

but only if that school is a private or national institution.

My view exactly.

[ScareCrow]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_825718.html

Thoughts on this?

The way I see it is if some crazy lunatic came shooting up my school, I'd like to have someone (if not myself) have an opportunity to defend mine and also other people's lives instead of just letting them go willy-nilly on the rampage until law enforcement shows up. How many lives could have been saved if someone (or people) were allowed to defend themselves when carrying? Although, I do see the other side of the argument. Someone who meets the criteria to be able to CC, but still not fully rational in his/her mind can just as easily go on a said rampage. But, at the same time, whoever would do that in the first place wouldn't hinge on the fact that they were doing it legally or not [with the CHL].

I'm from Romania and guns are not allowed for anybody in my country. You have to be a governement official, to work in security company or to be a police officer otherwise it's illegal. The only way to end your problems is to ban guns from "domestic" use. That's is the way i see it. I can agree that sometimes you might feel like shooting some idiot but again that it's not a solution...

[And2TheRepublic]

@Rally, i think meaning behind that quote is the unaliable rights we have here and the rights expressed in the constitution.

Driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right. Its a privelage. Which is why making the speed limit certain speeds or requiring us to wear seatbelts.

However, if we are willing to give up such rights like keeping and bearing arms, or the right to own our property free from imminent domain, or the right to remain silent to avoid self-prosecution, then we deserve none of it such as freedom of speech and religion.

Australia wants to get rid of the right to remain silent. This may not help criminals, but it doesnt help the innocent either.

[Bimmerteck]

My view... Just because it is a right it doesn't mean it is a need. "it's your right to bear arms so do it or someone will shoot you!" "well shit I better load up then". It's a whole circle of fear that escalates and makes an issue out of basically nothing. If a criminal is going to use a weapon, he'll use whether you have a gun or not...are you really going to have time if a mugger came at you with his gun already pulled, you a quickshooter? The crime problem lies with the authorities, it is not solved letting people believe they NEED guns to be safe. I will LOL if I hear someone gets shot trying to ask a stranger an innocent question on the street, which is where this will eventually lead.

I've carried concealed for 10 years now, pulled my gun only once on a man armed with a knife who approached me in a dark alley and told me to hand him my wallet. Upon seeing my drawn gun he dropped the knife he had been holding and ran, Police caught him that evening and charged him with attempted armed robbery and off to jail he went.(again apparently)

[Rally]

@Rally, i think meaning behind that quote is the unaliable rights we have here and the rights expressed in the constitution.

Driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right. Its a privelage. Which is why making the speed limit certain speeds or requiring us to wear seatbelts.

Of course it's not a constitutional right....there were no cars back then . That's not enough to distinguish or separate the two, for me. In current times, both seem like privileges to me.

Surely "unalienable rights" is a bit more complex than a set of doctrines written by some old guys who lived in a time with cannons, scurvy, and slavery. They couldn't have possibly taken into account future "unalienable rights" for things like cars, nuclear war, internet privacy, or robots because they were living in log cabins and sitting around fires to keep warm. If one is to believe in "unalienable rights", they have to be willing to look to a metaphysical level that encompasses all past, current, and future rights/freedoms rather than turning to the constitution, which was written ages ago.

We all willingly give up freedoms on a daily basis (beyond my speeding example) and we do so in order to live in a safe, enjoyable country....and it works. As with anything, it's simply a matter of moderation and balance.

However, if we are willing to give up such rights like keeping and bearing arms, or the right to own our property free from imminent domain, or the right to remain silent to avoid self-prosecution, then we deserve none of it such as freedom of speech and religion.

On what basis?

Just because we give up one freedom doesn't mean we have to give up all the other ones. That's the basis of democracy. Through voting, we determine which freedoms we, as a society, are willing to give up in exchange for security. It's up to us to keep it balanced. I don't see why I would be undeserving of the freedom of speech just because I'm willing to give up the freedom to own a gun.

[Urkel.S]

Welcome to America.

If you have a problem, just gun it.
Still have a problem? Buy more guns

[NegativeCamber]

in sorry Americans, but your gun laws are fucking retarded, and all of this "right to bear arms" is a fucking farce.

guns dont kill people. people do. this is how you keep a government in check and from becoming a tyranny. its all about checks and balances. there is a problem when only the criminals, cops, and military are the only ones who have the guns. look a the failed country of Mexico. the place is a shithole. its death rate is sky high from gun play and guns arent even allowed over there. it is not ok for the innocent people of Mexico to be victimized by the corrupt police and drug cartels because they can't defend themselves. a gun is a necessary tool for self protection.

[kartikeya]

I'd like to bring up that the 2nd Amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear arms of any sort and carry them wherever and however you want"

It simply says "the right to keep and bear arms".

Nobody's rights are being infringed by limiting what kind of arms can be kept or borne, and how and where they are kept and carried.

The US could ban some or all carry permits entirely and not necessarily be violating the 2nd amendment, due to the ambiguity of how it is written.

[Ollie]

Great idea, I don't think its so much a right as it is an obligation to carry a firearm, it is the sole reason the great United States of America will never be invaded on our soil, or fall to the power of another country, we are an armed society.

wuttttt

[And2TheRepublic]

You left out the most important part of the 2nd amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE IN FRINGED.

[Slinger]

Just legalize weed.

I'll explain why later, because right now I'm way too stoned.

[jared1988]

i didnt read the article and i just skimmed but am i the only one to bring up this:

gun + alcohol = ???

college partys all the time, people getting drunk and stupid, now throw a gun in the mix and their will be shootings every weekend

[kartikeya]

You left out the most important part of the 2nd amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE IN FRINGED.

If that's aimed at me, I left it out because it was irrelevant to my point.

[Urkel.S]

Just legalize weed.

I'll explain why later, because right now I'm way too stoned.

lolz, had to come from a dude in Amsterdam

[JSanders]

i didnt read the article and i just skimmed but am i the only one to bring up this:

gun + alcohol = ???

college partys all the time, people getting drunk and stupid, now throw a gun in the mix and their will be shootings every weekend

They are only allowing people who are permitted to carry a concealed handgun to carry it on college campuses.

They are not allowing anybody new to carry firearms, just entitling those who are already authorized to carry firearms to carry them on campus, where they were previously restricted.