Texas to allow guns on college campuses.

[mihneagabriel]

The same thing that would happen off a college campus?

Yes but how many mass shootings happen off campus? College campuses are a big target for shootings because there are so many people and most of the time it is harder for law enforcement to get to the middle of the campus in their big vehicles.

and BTW I live in Texas and have seen many people who act like they are 12 but have shotguns in the back of their trucks.

But like stated above if less people carried and had weapons then less weapons would be acquired by the "bad guys" because they steal guns from lawful licensed owners.

Its funny, you cant smoke or drink on some campuses but youre allowed to carry a gun?

[Bimmerteck]

If you destroyed all the guns, thered be none for people to use, and therefore there'd be less of a problem of people being worried, and needing to carry guns everywhere.

Your logic is flawed sir. Guns do not kill people only one of the 30 or so in my collection has ever shot anybody and only b/c it was previously a military weapon. If you take away all the guns people will still rob, beat, and kill one another. Perhaps we should destroy all frying pans, hammers, dildos, and frozen food while we're at it?


Frying pans, and hammers
http://www.wset.com/Global/story.asp?S=14087306

Dildos
http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-14...f-defence.html

Frozen food
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...rre&id=7945803

[Bimmerteck]

Its funny, you cant smoke or drink on some campuses but youre allowed to carry a gun?

I believe your confusing rules of the college for students with laws. Legal and allowed are different things especially for students.


Actually being intoxicated with a firearm in your possession is a crime everywhere in many states.

[And2TheRepublic]

The 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right whether you like it or not. You may completely disagree with it, and that is certainly your right if you are an American. I would then ask, do you disagree with other amendments? how about the 1st Amendment? Do any of you wish to rid ourselves of our rights to speech?

Most likely not. Although i am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and regularly exercise my right, i do respect other peoples decision to disagree with it.

The 2nd Amendment is just as relevent today as it was when it was written. There is a reason the 2nd Amendment is the second in order right after freedom of speech and religion. I again ask you to look up what the founding fathers had to say about it. It was not just about protecting yourself from invasion. They are much more articulate on the subject than i ever could be.

We can argue about what is relevent in this modern age all we want, but the truth is we have this right, and just like other rights in this country, who is any one person to be in favor of taking that right away? Its one thign to disagree and something else to advocate the right to be abolished.

More guns does not mean more crime. The statistical truth is but only a few clicks away.

Since the UK banned guns in 1997, gun crime has more than doubled.

In the USA, a very large portion of gun crimes happen in or near gun free zones.

[Jesus Christ]

Since the UK banned guns in 1997, gun crime has more than doubled.

In the USA, a very large portion of gun crimes happen in or near gun free zones.

concurred

[Rally]

The 2nd Amendment is just as relevent today as it was when it was written. [...] I again ask you to look up what the founding fathers had to say about it. It was not just about protecting yourself from invasion. They are much more articulate on the subject than i ever could be.

Have you read it? It's really not all that descriptive or in depth, and it almost solely points to the amendment being written for protection purposes.

"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."

The use of the term "militia" and "being necessary for the security" strongly suggest that the main intention of the amendment were for means of protection.

[Jesus Christ]

Have you read it? It's really not all that descriptive or in depth, and it almost solely points to the amendment being written for protection purposes.

"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."

The use of the term "militia" and "being necessary for the security" strongly suggest that the main intention of the amendment were for means of protection.



At the time of writing the consitution, US citizens had the right to own slaves. Are you saying that it was wrong for us to abolish that right?

what part are you not clear on? "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." pretty self explanatory

the term militia was used because they were more popular then.

and why even bring up is such a controversial subject as slavery to detract from the issue at hand? slavery was proven unconstitutional by the supreme court so it was not wrong to abolish it. The right to bear arms on the other hand is constitutional so your point is rather invalid.

[And2TheRepublic]

The use of the term "militia" and "being necessary for the security" strongly suggest that the main intention of the amendment were for means of protection.

At the time of writing the consitution, US citizens had the right to own slaves. Are you saying that it was wrong for us to abolish that right?

I never said it wasnt about protection. i said it wasnt only about protection from INVASION. i was implying that it meant more than just one type of protection. I think we can all agree there is more than one reason to protect one's self. Also, the first part of the 2nd Amendment and the second go together and are also seperate. The same way that the 1st Amendment is not talking about just one right, but in fact a few.

On the topic of slavery:

US citizens had the ability, because there was not a law or Amendment prohibiting it until 1865. Until then, it was on each State to make up its own laws regarding it IAW the 10th Amendment. Was slavery right? NO. But IMO comparing gun ownership to slave ownership is apples and oranges, but if thats the way you needed to make a point, that is understandable.

Slavery was also unconstitutional and according to the Decleration of Independence, immoral. hence why the 13th and 14th Amendments now exists.

I will also add that the constitutional does not grant rights. It does not GIVE us anything, but only affirms what rights we as human beings and Americans have and limits the power of the government to take that from us.

[Jesus Christ]

I never said it wasnt about protection. i said it wasnt only about protection from INVASION. i was implying that it meant more than just one type of protection. I think we can all agree there is more than one reason to protect one's self. Also, the first part of the 2nd Amendment and the second go together and are also seperate. The same way that the 1st Amendment is not talking about just one right, but in fact a few.

On the topic of slavery:

US citizens had the ability, because there was not a law or Amendment prohibiting it until 1865. Until then, it was on each State to make up its own laws regarding it. Was slavery right? NO. But IMO comparing gun ownership to slave ownership is apples and oranges, but if thats the way you needed to make a point, that is understandable.

slavery to gun control is more like apples to humans

[Rally]

what part are you not clear on? "

I never said I was unclear on any of it. I grasp the intentions and only brought it into this thread because it was the topic at hand.

and why even bring up is such a controversial subject as slavery to detract from the issue at hand?

Already removed it prior to your post for that very reason. My bad. You caught my edit.

slavery to gun control is more like apples to humans

It wasn't a direct analogy of topics. I was simply using it to point out that it's alright to view things as "wrong" even though we may have previously deemed them "right". Times and societal growth can change the moral spectrum of our society.

[mihneagabriel]

Just out of curiosity are you allowed to carry a firearm on a military base?

[And2TheRepublic]

Just out of curiosity are you allowed to carry a firearm on a military base?

On some bases, yes, but only in your vehicle.. For the most part, it is up to the Base Commander. Most bases do not allow you to carry either concealed or open. You can own weapons and keep them in your house on base. You are allowed to transport them under certain circumstances.

I am active military, and i can say that generally, officers in the upper echelon are anti 2nd amendment which is an oxymoron. Most of these current gun policies on bases were enacted by Bill Clinton. As you get higher in rank it becomes very political and officers dont like to rock the boat when their career is on the line.

[mihneagabriel]

On some bases, yes, but only in your vehicle.. For the most part, it is up to the Base Commander. Most bases do not allow you to carry either concealed or open. You can own weapons and keep them in your house on base. You are allowed to transport them under certain circumstances.

I am active military, and i can say that generally, officers in the upper echelon are anti 2nd amendment which is an oxymoron. Most of these policies however, are from much earlier presidents. As you get higher in rank it becomes very political and officers dont like to rock the boat when their career is on the line.

how do you get them out of your house off base?

and yeah thats very interesting that even some bases (government) step on rights

[Jesus Christ]

It wasn't a direct analogy of topics. I was simply using it to point out that it's alright to view things as "wrong" even though we may have previously deemed them "right". Times and societal growth can change the moral spectrum of our society.

i see where you're coming from and it is certainly a possibility a future generation would deem it ridiculous in the same fashion we deem slavery ridiculous.

the same could be said about cigarettes, gasoline engine cars, immigration and economic strategy to name only a few.

but with my limited knowledge of the future i can say that it is a bad idea to force a passionate group of people who have done nothing wrong to forfeit their rights.

with that mentality we should limit commuter cars to 75mph because there are a ton of high speed crashes. it WOULD reduce automotive deaths.....

[And2TheRepublic]

how do you get them out of your house off base?

and yeah thats very interesting that even some bases (government) step on rights

If you live off post, then you can do what you want. Its when you live on base or enter a base that there are laws about what you can and cant do with firearms.

The government is the biggest perpetrator of denying rights. Every federal building and federal land in the country prohibits firearms of any kind unless you are a government official.