PDA

View Full Version : AZ governor Jan Brewer vetoes campus carry


G60
04-18-2011, 4:49 PM
http://bit.ly/gZgB9j

pointedstick
04-18-2011, 5:13 PM
Huh, she says it was because the bill was "sloppily drafted." I hope we can get a better bill through next time.

Luieburger
04-18-2011, 5:13 PM
Hopefully they can get some more solid legislation written up to send in again.

violator22348
04-18-2011, 5:30 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

N6ATF
04-18-2011, 5:36 PM
Assuming she wasn't saying one thing while thinking another, this echoes the argument that came up in the previous thread. 'Right of way' might as well be 'not at all' if it's not defined as everywhere law-abiders can go.

I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Hello,
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9542/helmke.png

RKV
04-18-2011, 5:45 PM
according to 10 USC 311. In fact its 17 year olds who are members of the militia. Their lives are worth no more nor no less than yours. You cannot legitimately disarm them under our Constitution, and especially since they can be drafted to risk their lives defending your ***.

hgreen
04-18-2011, 5:47 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

You must be confused with what website you are on. This is a pro-2A forum, not a Brady Campaign forum...

CalBear
04-18-2011, 5:48 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.
Maybe Brewer was correct because the bill was sloppily drafted. I can't say for sure as I haven't read it. I will say, however, that I don't think dumping it for the reason you cited would be reasonable.

That's the argument the antis use to push against campus carry. Let's get one thing straight: "campus carry" is not about forming a universal student militia, where all students are required to carry arms in class. And another point to straighten out: campus carry laws have no effect on who can do general concealed carry!

The whole point of these laws is allowing those people who can already carry concealed to do so on college campuses for self defense. In other words, if such a bill were passed in CA, 21 year old students who obtained CCW permits would be able to carry on campus, rather than having to leave their weapon at home.

My feeling is campus carry will not make all the students who don't already carry at home and around town suddenly start carrying. It has been my experience that people who CCW tend to be more responsible and upstanding than average, and I am confident that would be the case with students.

And at the end of the day, crafting emotional hypothetical scenarios like a student carrying a gun to class, getting in an argument over a test, and going on a shooting spree... well they're just complete BS. The antis have used them for years, and they've always been BS. It's already possible to carry a gun to class illegally if someone really wants to start killing people. Law abiding people are not going to have anger flare ups that push them to shoot professors or classmates.

What this is really about is self defense. If another Cho (VT) comes along and starts picking off students, I'd like at least a few people to have the means to stop him. In the world of victim disarmament, we disarm people to stop ridiculous hypothetical where otherwise lawful people blow up and start shooting. The real effect is eliminating the right to self defense.

pointedstick
04-18-2011, 6:18 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

I completely agree. We should disarm all the soldiers in the U.S. Military under age 21 for just this reason. Heck, it should be illegal for anyone under 21 to own a gun anywhere! After all, can you imagine what would happen if you allowed a bunch of volatile 20-somethings to have guns? :rolleyes:

FourTenJaeger
04-18-2011, 6:21 PM
Wtf Brewer? I looked up to you! :mad:

Window_Seat
04-18-2011, 6:26 PM
She just stated on Fox News (Greta Van Susteren) the reason why she vetoed it, and then she ended the phone conversation with "No guns on our University campuses, and no guns on our Kindergarten campuses"...

She said it in a way as if to indicate that it would never get past her desk no matter how it's written, and then used the "sloppy" excuse to keep from seeing the wrath of NRA supporters.

Erik.

CalBear
04-18-2011, 6:30 PM
She just stated on Fox News (Greta Van Susteren) the reason why she vetoed it, and then she ended the phone conversation with "No guns on our University campuses, and no guns on our Kindergarten campuses"...

She said it in a way as if to indicate that it would never get past her desk no matter how it's written, and then used the "sloppy" excuse to keep from seeing the wrath of NRA supporters.

Erik.
Oh boy. Time to elect a new governor in Arizona. :mad:

JDoe
04-18-2011, 6:32 PM
This was not a true campus carry bill it only applied to rights of way and excluded locations like campus buildings and classrooms.

dfletcher
04-18-2011, 6:34 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

I'd bet that many of us over the age of 40 who have attended college (or two or three ....) had the same thought for a brief moment. But the underlying theory that some adults as a group are not not worthy of certain rights, or that because of where they live (such as public housing) rights may be abridged, is dangerous. It was used for years to deny 2nd Amendment rights to blacks. I understand the impulse, but you can't bargain away someone else's rights without jeopordizing your own.

So long as the 20 something goofballs meet the same criteria as the 30 something goofballs they should be treated equally.

And as an aside, there are more than a few 30 somethings attending college too.

Vipersx911
04-18-2011, 6:36 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

IF I am not mistaken I believe there is already a protected carry law in universities in place in Utah. I cannot remember the code number on it I am sure someone does, however AZ is not the first state to try this one out, and there has been no issues that I have heard of about the "Volatile 20-somethings" in Utah.

GWbiker
04-18-2011, 6:37 PM
From the Arizona Citizens Defense League site:

SB 1467, the AzCDL-requested Campus Carry bill, was vetoed by Governor Brewer on April 18, 2011.

SB 1467 would simply have prevented the governing boards of colleges and universities from prohibiting the "lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public right-of-way." That covers streets, sidewalks, etc. open to public use. Her press conference cited concerns about the lack of a definition of a "public right of way" that sounded suspiciously similar to the complaints of the anti-rights forces that have been bombarding the governor and urging her to veto the bill. Apparently, the fact that the term "public right of way" is used numerous times throughout Arizona law does not provide sufficient clarity, at least not when it comes to protecting the rights of the law abiding on our college and university campuses.

The anti-rights crowd has pulled out all the stops this year to prevent teachers, staff, and students in Arizona from having a safe learning environment. East Coast based national groups have beefed up their staff in Arizona. At the Capitol, they have spared no expense on lobbying, including holding a closed meeting with "freshmen" legislators in the House (AzCDL tried to attend but we were stopped at the door). On college and university campuses, they have conducted a series of fear-mongering indoctrination sessions, disguised as "forums," to stop Campus Carry. Sadly, they have also exploited the victims of the January Tucson shooting tragedy in order to intimidate nervous legislators. Now, they appear to have succeeded in convincing an otherwise pro-rights governor to ensure that campuses remain safe havens for criminals and dangerous places for students.

tuna quesadilla
04-18-2011, 6:38 PM
This was not a true campus carry bill it only applied to rights of way and excluded locations like campus buildings and classrooms.

Yup. It wouldn't have actually given students the right to carry to class.

But believe me, there already is campus CCW in Arizona. In large numbers. ;)

erikdjs
04-18-2011, 6:46 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

WTF is this?

Vipersx911
04-18-2011, 6:51 PM
WTF is this?

Couldnt agree more. I am a member of that age group and I do not consider myself volatile or in any way out of the ordinary from any other age group. I go out to AZ often and rather enjoy my right to carry in that state. Hopefully they will get a "better Written" law on the books out there that will protect the individuals rights.

resident-shooter
04-18-2011, 6:53 PM
Brewer for president !!!

Arondos
04-18-2011, 6:56 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

I guess you better not look at the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or Navy.

CitaDeL
04-18-2011, 7:00 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

It may be the correct call by Brewer if the legislation was somehow fatally flawed, but not for the reasons you outline above.

I'm curious as to what you think makes a 20-something any more volatile than any other group of people- say like me, at 40. Or someone who is new to gun ownership. Or black, or female, or physically challenged... See, the problem with your assumption is that when you start drawing lines where an adult can or cant exercise an inherent liberty, you can start being arbitrary about anyone who wants to carry for personal protection.

Your attitude towards campus carry is the sort of thinking that got California (and other anti-gun dominated states) what we have today...

The other issue I have with what you wrote is that you assume that a minute amount violence on campus is not justification for allowing students to carry, when in actuality, crime (like rape, assault, robbery) in any quantity that is undetered by either adequate policing or an armed student body is sufficient reason to unrestrict the right to keep and bear arms. And in my view, even if policing were seen as effective, that by no means, should limit my or anyone else's ability to protect themselves on campus or anywhere else.

OleCuss
04-18-2011, 7:14 PM
If it was poorly drafted, then I'm glad it was vetoed.

That said, I honestly doubt that poorly drafted legislation on this particular topic would have made it through the legislature.

I think I would like to have every carrying student attend a briefing on campus carry (about 30-60 minutes long) but I'm not sure even that should be mandatory.

Ubermcoupe
04-18-2011, 7:20 PM
I guess you better not look at the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or Navy.

Or National Guard, Air National guard, LEAs, Hunters, Junior competitors, Civilians... that's like almost everyone right? :eek:

john.t.singh
04-18-2011, 7:24 PM
i thought brewer was pro gun

CHS
04-18-2011, 7:33 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Yeah! How dare those people who are of legal age to own, buy and posses rifles, shotguns and handguns be allowed to use them! YEAH!!

Last I checked, this bill would have applied to EVERYONE. Not just college kids.

QQQ
04-18-2011, 7:33 PM
I guess she figures students, staff, faculty, and visitors don't count as real people and that their rights don't count.

Bummer.

tonelar
04-18-2011, 7:39 PM
Who got to her? The bradys?

Skidmark
04-18-2011, 7:58 PM
I guess you better not look at the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or Navy.

EFZ. If we're to trust our soldiers with firearms, at 20 years old... why do we deny that trust to their peers?

As an aside, Brewer at least had the good sense to vetoe the looney-tunes birther bill. Maybe she has a few functioning brain cells after all.

J.D.Allen
04-18-2011, 8:11 PM
Wow. I'm in shock.

Dreaded Claymore
04-18-2011, 8:16 PM
I'd bet that many of us over the age of 40 who have attended college (or two or three ....) had the same thought for a brief moment. But the underlying theory that some adults as a group are not not worthy of certain rights, or that because of where they live (such as public housing) rights may be abridged, is dangerous. It was used for years to deny 2nd Amendment rights to blacks. I understand the impulse, but you can't bargain away someone else's rights without jeopordizing your own.

So long as the 20 something goofballs meet the same criteria as the 30 something goofballs they should be treated equally.

And as an aside, there are more than a few 30 somethings attending college too.

Quoted because it needs to be read twice.

dustoff31
04-18-2011, 8:37 PM
Wow. I'm in shock.

I'm not really surprized. She will roll over for the educators every time.

todd2968
04-18-2011, 8:41 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.


WOW Let just take everyones guns away!!!!
You have to realize that a large amount of those people in college are ex-military. While were at it lets just disarm the military
(give them big sticks) they are mostly 20-somethings.
OPEN MOUTH INSERT FOOT

mossy
04-18-2011, 9:09 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

that is the CA mentality that let the antis destroy our once great state.

OleCuss
04-18-2011, 9:21 PM
Hmm. . .

Personally, I think violator22348 has been beaten upon sufficiently.

I also think it should be noted that Brewer has also vetoed a requirement that Presidential and VP candidates must show that they are Constitutionally qualified for the position they seek.

Either there is real garbage being put out by the legislature or she just isn't what a lot of conservatives have thought she was.

No point in bashing her about it. If you live in AZ and don't like it, then don't ever vote for her again. Otherwise it will simply be interesting to see if a couple of veto overrides are attempted.

I'm going to trust the Arizonans to take care of their own. I think they're capable.

Cali-Shooter
04-18-2011, 9:54 PM
Assuming she wasn't saying one thing while thinking another, this echoes the argument that came up in the previous thread. 'Right of way' might as well be 'not at all' if it's not defined as everywhere law-abiders can go.



Hello,
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9542/helmke.png

Helmke, what a herp-a-derp.

dustoff31
04-18-2011, 10:08 PM
Either there is real garbage being put out by the legislature or she just isn't what a lot of conservatives have thought she was.

No point in bashing her about it. If you live in AZ and don't like it, then don't ever vote for her again. Otherwise it will simply be interesting to see if a couple of veto overrides are attempted.

I'm going to trust the Arizonans to take care of their own. I think they're capable.


There are some other things in the works. Chess, not checkers as they say.

The basic problem here is money. Brewer bends to educators in general, but more specifically in this case, college is large part of the tourist industry here in AZ. So if Suzy Soccermom from some other state thinks guns are icky then little Johnny doesn't go to UA, or NAU, etc.

She has as well toned herself down in certain other areas after being leaned on by the Chamber of Commerce for similar reasons.

MP301
04-18-2011, 10:50 PM
EFZ. If we're to trust our soldiers with firearms, at 20 years old... why do we deny that trust to their peers?

As an aside, Brewer at least had the good sense to vetoe the looney-tunes birther bill. Maybe she has a few functioning brain cells after all.

Why would you have a problem with requiring someone to prove something that the rest of us have to prove all of the time? It should have been required from the begining. No Brainer actually.

safewaysecurity
04-18-2011, 10:53 PM
Yah I agree the bill was sloppily drafted. They need to let kids carry in the classroom or else it's kind of pointless imo. I feel like it could potentially put alot of innocent CCWers in jail for nothing. But I still think something is better than nothing. They need to stop gutting these campus carry things and just eliminate the restriction all together.

Anchors
04-18-2011, 11:51 PM
I'm pretty sure she vetoed it to get a stronger bill in place that would allow carry inside buildings too.

I have A LOT of friends at ASU and from what one of them told me all the ROTC kids are usually armed anyway (I'm not sure what makes that illegal/legal, but this is just second hand information anyway).

I only have one friend out of all of them at ASU who is against campus carry and he isn't even really against it, he's just on the fence about it, but we're trying to get through to him haha. He is okay with CCW holders carrying on campus.

Personally, I think it's a great idea and I wish I could carry at school. I daresay (without fact checking) that most mass shootings have occurred at schools and definitely every school shooting since I was born has been in a "gun-free zone".
It's time to take a new direction, because the old way clearly isn't working.


To the people that think people in their 20s aren't capable of carrying firearms to school responsibly, how is carrying at school any different from carrying to the gym or work or the grocery store?
I am responsible enough to CCW all over Arizona, but the second I enter a school I'm magically going to go into an alcohol induced, testosterone fueled rampage? (I don't even drink?)
People need to stop underestimating others based on age.
There are people my age smarter and more responsible than most everyone my parent's age.

Vipersx911
04-18-2011, 11:56 PM
that is the CA mentality that let the antis destroy our once great state.

Thank you, that is my thought as well. I hear stories of the good ole days from neighbors who grew up here. One thing is clear those days are not only dead and gone but they are buried and decomposing... What we need is to change the way CA legislators look at firearms... dont know how to do that myself but hey maybe we all can figure that out.

nick
04-18-2011, 11:59 PM
I guess you better not look at the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or Navy.

Volatile baby-killers, the lot of 'em.

nick
04-19-2011, 12:04 AM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Must be the school zone magic we keep hearing about, the one that turns a person responsibly carrying elsewhere into a volatile bloodthirsty maniac the moment he steps over the magic line into the school zone. Yep, that must be it.

Digital_Boy
04-19-2011, 12:15 AM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

You mean, like the 18-20-somethings of the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force we equip with assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and heavy weapons and send out into harms way on a daily basis? And who pretty much don't act anything like what you imply these "volatile 20-somethings" would.

kcbrown
04-19-2011, 2:17 AM
Must be the school zone magic we keep hearing about, the one that turns a person responsibly carrying elsewhere into a volatile bloodthirsty maniac the moment he steps over the magic line into the school zone. Yep, that must be it.

Oh, it's even more magical than that! It also turns volatile bloodthirsty maniacs who would otherwise go on a shooting rampage into meek, mild-mannered citizens who wouldn't think of defying the "no firearms" policy:

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/4430/gunfreezonedang.jpg

yellowfin
04-19-2011, 6:41 AM
What we need is to change the way CA legislators look at firearms... dont know how to do that myself but hey maybe we all can figure that out.The way they look at them is that it's politically advantageous to hate them. They don't care about the facts or what is right or good.

tenpercentfirearms
04-19-2011, 7:05 AM
That is what I like about California. CCW holders can legally carry onto campus all they want. Only if caught will you possibly get expelled.

I carried to every single one of my master's classes. No one had a clue.

We will see if they craft up a better bill and what she does with it next time.

Luieburger
04-19-2011, 7:09 AM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Well... "volatile 20-somethings" aren't the only ones who go on campus. Don't forget those fine men and women who spent some time in the military, came back to get a higher education, and are no longer "volatile 20-somethings". How about other people who go back to get a higher education who are 30 or older? What about all of the people who are employed by the University, but aren't students (Janitors, teachers, groundskeepers, librarians, administrators, cafeteria workers)? What about parents?

Would you have all of those fine American citizens die by the hand of another campus shooter because they cannot defend themselves? When I was at the University of Washington in Seattle, a woman in administration was shot in her office by her abusive ex-husband. I don't know if she had a CCW permit or not, but I know that I would have a permit if I had a crazy ex-husband who was stalking me. Why should she be disarmed on campus?

not-fishing
04-19-2011, 7:16 AM
She just stated on Fox News (Greta Van Susteren) the reason why she vetoed it, and then she ended the phone conversation with "No guns on our University campuses, and no guns on our Kindergarten campuses"...

She said it in a way as if to indicate that it would never get past her desk no matter how it's written, and then used the "sloppy" excuse to keep from seeing the wrath of NRA supporters.

Erik.

California allows non-LEO/Security firearms in all schools, they're called CCW's. :rolleyes:

So what do you call left of left coast?

Is it Far Out Man???

RandyD
04-19-2011, 7:54 AM
She just stated on Fox News (Greta Van Susteren) the reason why she vetoed it, and then she ended the phone conversation with "No guns on our University campuses, and no guns on our Kindergarten campuses"...

She said it in a way as if to indicate that it would never get past her desk no matter how it's written, and then used the "sloppy" excuse to keep from seeing the wrath of NRA supporters.

Erik.

When I heard her comment on Greta's show, I thought the same thing. I am certain that she had an advance draft of the bill and she could have worked with the legislature to iron out any language issues. Her closing line reflects that she was not open to this bill under any circumstances. I have lost respect for her.

titankeith
04-19-2011, 8:26 AM
EFZ. If we're to trust our soldiers with firearms, at 20 years old... why do we deny that trust to their peers?

As an aside, Brewer at least had the good sense to vetoe the looney-tunes birther bill. Maybe she has a few functioning brain cells after all.

What is looney-tunes about requiring proof of citizen ship to run for office?

violator22348
04-19-2011, 9:05 AM
according to 10 USC 311. In fact its 17 year olds who are members of the militia. Their lives are worth no more nor no less than yours. You cannot legitimately disarm them under our Constitution, and especially since they can be drafted to risk their lives defending your ***.

Specious argument. When did you last see your town militia form up?
Please provide muster rolls.

k1dude
04-19-2011, 9:12 AM
In other words, if such a bill were passed in CA, 21 year old students who obtained CCW permits would be able to carry on campus, rather than having to leave their weapon at home.

No CCW permit is required in Arizona.

violator22348
04-19-2011, 9:13 AM
You mean, like the 18-20-somethings of the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force we equip with assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and heavy weapons and send out into harms way on a daily basis? And who pretty much don't act anything like what you imply these "volatile 20-somethings" would.

wow...did you think of that one all by yourself, Mr. Straw Man?

the MILITARY are TRAINED in the use of firearms, identifying enemies, tactics and strategies of offensive and defensive maneuver.

You want to arm the dopey kid who just fell off his skateboard on his way to art class.

Southwest Chuck
04-19-2011, 9:17 AM
Originally Posted by Skidmark View Post
......As an aside, Brewer at least had the good sense to vetoe the looney-tunes birther bill. Maybe she has a few functioning brain cells after all. Really?

What is looney-tunes about requiring proof of citizen ship to run for office? This ^^

I had to show a certified copy of my birth certificate to get my CA driver's license back in the day. Also had to show it when I got my passport. Is it too much to ask that candidates must show proof that they meet the constitutional requirements to run for the highest office in the land before being put on the ballot? I think not.

eeh.., maybe you're right, the constitution doesn't mean that much any more.
:rolleyes:

violator22348
04-19-2011, 9:18 AM
You must be confused with what website you are on. This is a pro-2A forum, not a Brady Campaign forum...

Predictable dreck.

PS...I own 29 guns, and have been a shooter and 2A advocate for 30 years.
But I also try to acknowledge reality....try it sometime.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 9:24 AM
No CCW permit is required in Arizona.
Ya sure, in AZ. I was talking about CA. But in AZ, they can carry in 99.99% of the state, anyway. What I don't get is how different it is to allow people who can already legally carry concealed weapons to do so on university campuses. The idea that making it legal would somehow cause immediately shootouts is the same argument used against concealed carry in general. Those arguments have been wrong on every level, every time.

violator22348
04-19-2011, 9:28 AM
And at the end of the day, crafting emotional hypothetical scenarios like a student carrying a gun to class, getting in an argument over a test, and going on a shooting spree... well they're just complete BS. The antis have used them for years, and they've always been BS. It's already possible to carry a gun to class illegally if someone really wants to start killing people. Law abiding people are not going to have anger flare ups that push them to shoot professors or classmates.



Careful with that argument.
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.

And what is this supposed to mean? "Law abiding people are not going to have anger flare ups that push them to shoot professors or classmates."

...Really? You can predict that?...I'm impressed.:rolleyes:

titankeith
04-19-2011, 9:36 AM
Careful with that argument.
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.

And what is this supposed to mean?

...Really? You can predict that?...I'm impressed.:rolleyes:


Love the smarmy answer that can be reversed: and you can predict that this won't happen because it's illegal...wow, I'm impressed, because so far it hasn"t stopped any of the crazed killers shooting sprees, but perhaps now that Brewer refused to sign it will magically insure it never happens again. The obvious POINT is that it allows the RIGHT of citizens to protect themselves against the one's that will carry illegally anyway...let me reiterate the obvious, 2nd amendment makes it a RIGHT.

thomasanelson
04-19-2011, 9:36 AM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Spoken like a true follower of the "Nanny State". There are always "rational" and "common sense" reasons to deny individual freedoms. This type of appeasement thinking is what gets things banned.

nick
04-19-2011, 9:53 AM
wow...did you think of that one all by yourself, Mr. Straw Man?

the MILITARY are TRAINED in the use of firearms, identifying enemies, tactics and strategies of offensive and defensive maneuver.

You want to arm the dopey kid who just fell off his skateboard on his way to art class.

Ah, the vaunted military (next you'll mention police) training. Funny, this argument is used for making CCW shall/no issue, as well.

First of all, if those "dopey kids" can carry off-campus, what changes when they carry on-campus?

Secondly, if they intend to commit a crime, what's stopping them from ignoring the fact that they have to carry a gun on campus in order to commit it? The penalty for carrying a gun on campus is way lower than for murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

I don't know when the last time you were at a college campus was, but a large number of people there aren't even students. By the way, where is that magical age barrier that you feel enables one to carry a gun on campus?

Oh, and as for the military or police training, don't overestimate it. That's aside from the fact that one's rights aren't supposed to depend on training, including one's right to life. Otherwise few people would be able to vote, and you wouldn't be able to talk on an internet forum (unless, of course, you're a properly trained journalist. What's the minimal training required to become a journalist, anyway? Is there any?).

Finally, the actual facts are against your opinion. The one state that has allowed carry on campus for a while, Utah, doesn't have rivers of blood flowing through its colleges. The predictions similar to yours about blood on the streets if shall issue or constitutional carry were to pass somehow fell far short of reality, as well. So the only thing you can show for your opinion is "what ifs" which are only substantiated by your feelings.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 9:54 AM
Careful with that argument.
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.

And what is this supposed to mean?

...Really? You can predict that?...I'm impressed.:rolleyes:
What amazes me is how anti rights people always line up under the same common theme: a select few people might do something bad, so we should take away the right from everyone. I'm sure the founders are rolling in their graves.

So what if school shootings might be committed by people on meds? If you're inhibited by drugs, it's illegal for you to possess or carry a gun anyway. Did that ever stop someone? It's illegal to murder too. If they're willing to commit a capital offense, will they really care about the gun charge? I still for the life of me cannot understand the tired old argument that more permissive concealed carry will somehow lead to more crimes. People who have gone off their rocker, or who want to commit crimes DO NOT CARE about concealed carry restrictions or other laws. The only people who follow them are mentally sound, lawful people.

Sometimes bad or trouble people just decide to no longer obey the law. No matter how many laws you craft, nothing will stop them... well except for increased police presence and citizens with the right to self defense.

What you're really saying is when that person with a mental disorder comes in and starts shooting, you don't want a single person to have the right to self defense. You want another Virginia Tech, where a mentally disturbed person brought a gun on a campus, in disregard of the carry prohibition, while the carry prohibition prevented self defense and led to the death of 30+ students.

We cannot predict when a lawful person will turn against the law and start killing people. Obviously. It's unlikely that a person with no criminal history will suddenly turn, but it happens. So is the answer to then outlaw carrying weapons, when murder is already illegal? You really think a person plotting a killing spree cares about concealed weapons laws? REALLY???? If someone decides to turn to the dark side, no concealed carry law will stop them -- no more than murder laws will. These laws only prevent self defense, because most people follow the law, and they won't break concealed carry laws, whereas criminals and psychos will, and do.

nick
04-19-2011, 10:02 AM
Predictable dreck.

PS...I own 29 guns, and have been a shooter and 2A advocate for 30 years.
But I also try to acknowledge reality....try it sometime.

Well, given that in this thread alone you've repeated at least 3 major arguments antis are so fond of (only military/police should carry because they have TRAINING, rivers of blood if carrying guns is allowed, and appeal to emotion with no data to substantiate your claim), this would explain the downhill slide of the 2A rights over those decades, especially given that the major 2A gain over those decades, shall issue CCW in most states, goes against your kind of predictions.

As for acknowledging reality, I pointed out some facts in my previous post (Utah college campus carry, general crime rates among CCW carriers) which seem to be in disagreement with your opinion. Do you have any facts (since we're talking reality here) to substantiate YOUR opinion?

violator22348
04-19-2011, 10:23 AM
As for acknowledging reality, I pointed out some facts in my previous post (Utah college campus carry, general crime rates among CCW carriers) which seem to be in disagreement with your opinion. Do you have any facts (since we're talking reality here) to substantiate YOUR opinion?

Yeah, I do. How about this story, not even two hours old::
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-houston-shooting-idUSTRE73I5E920110419?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:

violator22348
04-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Well, given that in this thread alone you've repeated at least 3 major arguments antis are so fond of (only military/police should carry because they have TRAINING, rivers of blood if carrying guns is allowed, and appeal to emotion with no data to substantiate your claim), this would explain the downhill slide of the 2A rights over those decades, especially given that the major 2A gain over those decades, shall issue CCW in most states, goes against your kind of predictions.



I never said anywhere in my posts that only military/police should carry guns because they have training. What I said was (paraphrase) that MILITARY people in their 20's are TRAINED and therefore qualified.

I never said 'rivers of blood' either. This is what I hate about some gun owners. They just can't stay on topic. They just want everyone to be armed. That's the policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other S-holes. I don't wish my country to resemble those places in any way.

Glock22Fan
04-19-2011, 10:33 AM
Yeah, I do. How about this story, not even two hours old::
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-houston-shooting-idUSTRE73I5E920110419?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:

And are you saying that the six year old carried a firearm to school BECAUSE there was a law that specifically said he could?

And if this Az law had passed, would he have been legal in Arizona? (hint: I don't think so).

Or was he doing something illegal despite the law?

Let me paraphrase you: "Nineteen year olds can't be trusted because sometimes six year olds do stupid things."

Really?

CalBear
04-19-2011, 10:39 AM
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.

...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:
I think that's a very poor example.

First of all, I think anecdotal evidence is just that. Statistics are infinitely more important when considering the successes or failures of concealed carry laws.

Second, it's a story about friggin 6 year olds. I'm sure I can dig up a story about a child of a similar age driving a car and crashing into something. Is that a valid argument for why an 18 year old should not be able to drive?

Why is it that the attention always falls the lowest common denominator, not on the statistical average. Most people, including younger folks, who carry concealed seem to be responsible and lawful. Statistics reflect this, as there have been extremely few accidents and crimes committed by lawful concealed carriers. Why look at absolute extremes and the most pathetic examples when statistics and average cases are clear?

The reason is this is usually the only argument anti rights people can make. They seek out pathetic or disgusting examples as a justification of laws, because the statistics aren't in their favor. It reminds me of laws on sex offenders. They've done absolute no good, and yet people justify stricter laws by saying "think of the children" or "look at this sick bas*ard." The same thing happens with guns.

nick
04-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Yeah, I do. How about this story, not even two hours old::
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-houston-shooting-idUSTRE73I5E920110419?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:

1. There's a difference between a 6 year old and a 19 year old. If you can't figure it out, well, I'm sorry :)

2. A 6 year old carrying a gun, with parents nowhere in sight, is illegal. Somehow it still happened. So, the law making this illegal didn't stop it from happening? Who would've thought. I didn't see any language in this law (or any other campus carry law suggested to date) which would make it legal for 6 year olds to carry guns on campuses, especially given that they can't legally carry those to begin with.

3. So, did I say you used 3 anti arguments? Make it 4 now. Using a media article in lieu of statistics and proper research and claiming that one outlandish case represents every single person out there, even when statistics shows the case to be outlandish (care to show the frequency of this occurring compared to the number of school children? On the second thought, even if you could, it wouldn't matter, because it's not legal to begin with, see #2).

4. Actually, make the number of anti-favored arguments you've used so far 5. You took a media article that isn't even remotely related to the subject at hand, but involving "the children", and base your argument on the emotional appeal of "think of the children" when we're talking about COLLEGE campuses, and when children can't legally carry concealed guns on or off campuses to begin with.

BlindRacer
04-19-2011, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I do. How about this story, not even two hours old::
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-houston-shooting-idUSTRE73I5E920110419?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:

All I get from this, is that my 1 year old walks better without shoes. When I put shoes on him, he trips. Shoes should be banned for everyone.

Edit: Wow, that made a lot more sense in my head. Must be thinking of him, cause my little dude turns 1 tomorrow!!!

nick
04-19-2011, 10:53 AM
I never said anywhere in my posts that only military/police should carry guns because they have training. What I said was (paraphrase) that MILITARY people in their 20's are TRAINED and therefore qualified.

I never said 'rivers of blood' either. This is what I hate about some gun owners. They just can't stay on topic. They just want everyone to be armed. That's the policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other S-holes. I don't wish my country to resemble those places in any way.

I drew parallel between yours and similar arguments. The only difference between these arguments was the place to which they apply. You argue about college campuses, the same arguments were used against carry, period. So apparently the location makes this much of a difference. Must be that magical campus line.

Moreover, the "untrained 20-somethings" already carry in AZ and in most of the country. Somehow the crime rate among those is way below the average crime rate for the same areas (which part you seem to ignore). So what facts/statistics (not "what ifs") make you think this will change when those people who already carry outside of the college campus cross the street into college?

Now, how much do you actually know about Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it your conjecture that they're ****holes because everyone is armed? By that token, the US should be an even worse ****hole, as the rate of civilian gun ownership in the US is way higher than in both Iraq and Afghanistan (I know, I know, facts again. Damn facts). or maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with cultural, historical, geopolitical, other such factors...

Well, that's not mentioning the problems we (the invaders) and the previous generations of invaders are having in Afghanistan. Somehow I think Costa Rica (very low rate of gun ownership, abolished its military, and is a poster child for every anti who knows at least some geography) are having pacifying Afghanistan when Afghans don't want it our way, and the problems various Afghan governments of late were having with subjugating their population. I don't see how it's a bad thing. Mind you, this is way off-topic.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 10:54 AM
Using a media article in lieu of statistics and proper research and claiming that one outlandish case represents every single person out there, even when statistics shows the case to be outlandish
This one frustrates me the most. I know we all use anecdotal stories to provide emotional arguments, but when you're deciding between supporting or opposing a bill, the statistics should matter. Thus far, any fear of backlash from permissive concealed carry laws has been entirely unfounded. Statistics show that. Sure, you can dig up scary sounding news articles about gun accidents or crimes, but that proves nothing. I can dig up scary news articles about free speech, driving cars, using computers, etc. It doesn't mean those outlandish stories are representative of the norm.

violator22348
04-19-2011, 10:54 AM
I think that's a very poor example.

Of course you do. Because it illustrates numerous things that don't square with the rabid gun-owner's mentality.
1. Why does a 6-year old have access to a gun?
2. Why did he find it necessary to bring it to school?

First of all, I think anecdotal evidence is just that. Statistics are infinitely more important when considering the successes or failures of concealed carry laws.

I can agree with that. And Statistics are manipulated to prove or deny causation every day. (Guns cause/don't cause crime. Crime causes Gun ownership, etc. etc.)

Second, it's a story about friggin 6 year olds. I'm sure I can dig up a story about a child of a similar age driving a car and crashing into something. Is that a valid argument for why an 18 year old should not be able to drive?


So why not arm ALL the 6-year olds, so they can all be equally protected?...And I doubt you'll find a story about a 6-year old driving a car that injured three other people...

. Most people, including younger folks, who carry concealed seem to be responsible and lawful. Statistics reflect this, as there have been extremely few accidents and crimes committed by lawful concealed carriers. [/QUOTE]

You are mixing two variables here. You assume that 'most people' 'seem' to be responsible. I have never seen a breakdown on the mean average age of CCW holders. I would suspect ( I don't know ) that most CCW holders are ex/current military, police...and are in the 25-45 age category.

As you know, most college students are between 18-24. I agree that most CCw carriers are lawful. I just don't think that many of them fall into the category we are discussing.

nick
04-19-2011, 10:55 AM
Oh, and don't try to impress me by having 29 guns. It's the strength of your character that I'm judging you by :p

CalBear
04-19-2011, 11:01 AM
Of course you do. Because it illustrates numerous things that don't square with the rabid gun-owner's mentality.
I can respect that you disagree with me, but don't try to lump me into that group. I'm not blind dude. I've actually done way more research on 2A and gun statistics than average -- several books worth. There are plenty of moronic gun owners around there whose only argument is repeating the 2nd Amendment or tossing around. I'm not one of them.

nick
04-19-2011, 11:05 AM
I can agree with that. And Statistics are manipulated to prove or deny causation every day. (Guns cause/don't cause crime. Crime causes Gun ownership, etc. etc.)

The statistics by itself cannot show causation, it's the most common folly people do when using statistics to prove something the stats they quote don't show. All statistics can show is correlation, or lack of thereof. Further research can find causation, and statistics can provide pointers on where to look for causation. It can also show you the averages, whatever the cause might be.

Now, going back to correlation (or lack of thereof), there's no correlation between more permissive carry and increase in crime. There's also the fact that concealed carriers are less likely to commit crimes, whatever the reason is.

As for concealed carriers being 25-45, ex-military or ex-LEO, have you lived outside of CA? However, if you're right, then your argument against carry on campuses is moot. The bills for campus carry don't call for providing everyone on campus with a mandatory gun. They call for allowing those people who can otherwise carry off-campus to carry on-campus. So, how does this change the existing situation, except for extending the protection to the very same people who already carry onto a safe target zones that are college campuses.

nick
04-19-2011, 11:06 AM
What's a rabid gun owner again? Sounds familiar :)

gunsmith
04-19-2011, 11:07 AM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Rapist and murderers agree with you, it is easier to rape/murder someone if they are unarmed ... you can ask Amanda Collins she could have shot her rapist who attacked her on campus but she obeyed the law and didn't carry. You cant ask Brianna Dennison because the very same rapist killed her after he raped Amanda. So violator, you and rapist/murderers agree-its better to have armed criminals on campus rather then adults with ccw's.

WRT "arming thousands" that's gotta be one of the stupidest hyperbole I've seen here.

Arondos
04-19-2011, 11:19 AM
At the ripe ole age of 22.

I had been married for 3 years, active duty for three years. Late at night myself and another young man (about the same age) were responsible for handling anything that went wrong in a nuclear power plant until others got there to help. I would like to think that if we could be trusted with a reactor we had enough responsibility to handle a firearm. But if I had gotten out I would suddenly be an irresponsible college kid? Yeah that makes sense...

I had been trained on the use of the .45 and a shotgun ONCE because of military training. Total rounds fired? 40 from the .45 and IIRC 10 from the shotgun. I had been shooting pistol and shotgun since age 12 as a civilian. I've shot WAY more as a civilian than I ever did because of my military service.

So once again "for the children' we need to take rights away from everybody because of a few people with serious psychological or social issues, or irrational fears of what someone MIGHT do.

cruising7388
04-19-2011, 11:33 AM
You must be confused with what website you are on. This is a pro-2A forum, not a Brady Campaign forum...

And you must be confused regarding the basic purpose of a forum, which is to tolerate if not encourage, a broad range of views on a subject. What do you ever learn from someone that agrees with you?

There's something really suspect about Brewer's announced rationale for her veto. Let's get real. Does anyone really believe that the proponents and supporters of this bill were so dense as to not informally sound out Brewer regarding any reservations she had before writing the final draft of the bill and passing it? This just doesn't pass the sniff test. Something screwed up here and we're not yet privvy as to how or why.

Glock22Fan
04-19-2011, 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6231524#post6231524)
I think that's a very poor example.

Of course you do. Because it illustrates numerous things that don't square with the rabid gun-owner's mentality.
1. Why does a 6-year old have access to a gun?
2. Why did he find it necessary to bring it to school?



It is a very poor example because you praised Brewer vetoing a law and used an example of a six year old as justification for that veto.

The law she vetoes had nothing to do with six year olds taking guns to school. Whether she vetoed it or not would not stop the next six year old taking a gun to school.

Indeed it is hard to imagine any law that could possibly prevent all future occurances of that happening.

Therefore, your example is totally irrelevant.

Short of an impossible to completely enforce law "No guns for anyone, including police and military and criminals," some kid is someday going to have chance to pick up dad's gun. No law is going to stop that kid doing whatever the kid's inclinations and upbringing tell the kid to do with it.

How does stopping everyone, including (say) a thirty five year old veteran who shot expert, from concealed carrying on campus stop a six year old from borrowing dad's gun?

What possible connection could there be?

N6ATF
04-19-2011, 12:19 PM
I would posit that banning gun carry increases the probability that six year old will borrow their dad's gun. A gun worn on your body is a gun not in the hands of your child.

J.D.Allen
04-19-2011, 2:20 PM
Careful with that argument.
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.

So, if I get what you're saying, people on SSRI's are all very dangerous people, and should be denied CCW's based on their use of those medications? If so, I think you have a severe misunderstanding of what those medications are and what they are for.

Southwest Chuck
04-19-2011, 2:37 PM
I would posit that banning gun carry increases the probability that six year old will borrow their dad's gun. A gun worn on your body is a gun not in the hands of your child.

Unfortunately, this just happened. Saw it on Fox News an hour ago. It happened in Houston Texas today. A kindergartner brought a handgun to school to show classmates. He/she dropped it and it went off injuring three other kids. Sad situation and very negligent on the parents part, IMO.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/19/3-injured-in-accidental-texas-school-shooting

El Toro
04-19-2011, 2:47 PM
wow...did you think of that one all by yourself, Mr. Straw Man?

the MILITARY are TRAINED in the use of firearms, identifying enemies, tactics and strategies of offensive and defensive maneuver.

You want to arm the dopey kid who just fell off his skateboard on his way to art class.

Wow Violator are you contradicting yourself? In your thread regarding Obama's speech about the Tucson shooting, you praised a young, CCW holder for his coolness.

SNIP....If anyone wants to discuss gun control, it seems to me this is the classic case: A mentally unstable person legally purchases a firearm and commits murder. A mentally stable person legally carries a firearm and DOES NOT use it, showing restraint at precisely the proper moment.

Joe Zamudio is a nightmare for gun-control types: he's clear, calm, succinct, and solid in his knowledge and opinions. It he was a black female, the left would commit collective suicide.

Either you forgot you made the statement above, or your body has been taken over by an operative of the Brady bunch. Joe Zamudio is 23 and really not that much older than the 18-19 year-old kids fighting in our armed forces.

scarville
04-19-2011, 3:01 PM
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.
A more useful estimate of the risk is the total number of people using SSRI's versus those users who actually shoot some one. You will find the percentage is vanishingly small. For your fear of a tiny risk you would punish everyone.

N6ATF
04-19-2011, 3:06 PM
A case of using a flamethrower to kill a single bacterium.

dfletcher
04-19-2011, 3:21 PM
Of course you do. Because it illustrates numerous things that don't square with the rabid gun-owner's mentality.
1. Why does a 6-year old have access to a gun?
2. Why did he find it necessary to bring it to school?





I think your use of the 6 year old as reason to restrict the right of a 20 something or a 30 something (or me, a 50 something) to bring a handgun on to a campus fails simply because a 6 year old is ...... a child. One uses the big boy toilet, the other does not. The distinction seems pretty clear.

Denying law abiding adults the exercise of rights based on age or location, or an "uncomfortableness" of the combination, is simply wrong. It's no stretch to assert that if such an approach is acceptable with "20 years/college combination" it could also be applied to others. How about 20 somethings in off campus housing? How about 20 somethings in high crime areas or anyone who lives in public housing? How about the little old lady or man down the street - after all, they could decide to end it all one day. They're old, they've got nothing - someone should step in and remove the gun just beause they're old & alone, yes?

I wrote before I understand the "oh this isn't going to end well ..." impulse. I remember my college years - through a bit of a beer haze but I do remember them. But I believe you simply can not deny rights to one group without putting your own at risk. It is dangerous to believe people will not seek to expand restrictions.

chaseface
04-19-2011, 3:24 PM
You know what Violator22348... your using fear tactics right now to justify your decision that adults (college age) should not be able to arm themselves because they havnt proven to you that they are responsible enough to protect themselves. Well I've got some fear tactics for you. When I was a freshman in highschool, at Granite Hills High School in El Cajon California, an armed student came on campus with a shotgun and started blasting, right outside of my classroom door. I was trapped in a classroom for hours with a bunch of crying students with no options to protect ourselves other than hudling together in a small room teachers office inside of the room. If he had kicked in the door and started shooting our classroom directly we would have been fish in a barrel. I dont think you can imagine that kind of fear unless you have been in a similar situation. I'f I was armed would I have ran out of the room and started a gun battle in the middle of the school? NO!! But if he kicked in the door would I have been able to defend myself and my fellow classmates? Yes!!

Luckily he didnt have a lot of firearms knowledge and brought a shotgun with with only birdshot ammo. Nobody died, but a couple friends of mine went to the hospital to have pellets removed from their backs and faces. Unfortunately the high school right next to ours Santana High School, Santee California was not so lucky and when a school shooting happened there within two weeks of our shooting, 3 people died. There is nothing more frightening in this world than yourself and people you care about being in danger, and you not having the ability to defend yourself. I only hope that if I was in another shooting situation, that somebody (myself or someone else) would be prepared to defend the lives of themselves and others.

J.D.Allen
04-19-2011, 3:29 PM
You know what Violator22348... your using fear tactics right now to justify your decision that adults (college age) should not be able to arm themselves because they havnt proven to you that they are responsible enough to protect themselves. Well I've got some fear tactics for you. When I was a freshman in highschool, at Granite Hills High School in El Cajon California, an armed student came on campus with a shotgun and started blasting, right outside of my classroom door. I was trapped in a classroom for hours with a bunch of crying students with no options to protect ourselves other than hudling together in a small room teachers office inside of the room. If he had kicked in the door and started shooting our classroom directly we would have been fish in a barrel. I dont think you can imagine that kind of fear unless you have been in a similar situation. I'f I was armed would I have ran out of the room and started a gun battle in the middle of the school? NO!! But if he kicked in the door would I have been able to defend myself and my fellow classmates? Yes!!

Luckily he didnt have a lot of firearms knowledge and brought a shotgun with with only birdshot ammo. Nobody died, but a couple friends of mine went to the hospital to have pellets removed from their backs and faces. Unfortunately the high school right next to ours Santana High School, Santee California was not so lucky and when a school shooting happened there within two weeks of our shooting, 3 people died. There is nothing more frightening in this world than yourself and people you care about being in danger, and you not having the ability to defend yourself. I only hope that if I was in another shooting situation, that somebody (myself or someone else) would be prepared to defend the lives of themselves and others.

I went to school at Mount Miguel and I remember that shooting at Santana. There was also a girl that went to school there that was murdered by her boyfriend in her own home. A really pretty cheerleader. I knew her from my church youth group. That school has had some problems.

Back on topic I don't realistically think anyone is going to start arguing for laws allowing high school students to carry at school, but teachers, that's an entirely different matter, and something that should be addressed.

kcbrown
04-19-2011, 3:55 PM
This one frustrates me the most. I know we all use anecdotal stories to provide emotional arguments, but when you're deciding between supporting or opposing a bill, the statistics should matter.

Not when the bill governs a fundamental right, it shouldn't. Fundamental rights should be immune from such interest-balancing tests.

But it certainly doesn't hurt when the statistics actually favor exercise of the right...

Jack L
04-19-2011, 4:16 PM
Wow. I'm in shock.


What is the existing law regarding school zones in AZ if you have a AZ CCW?

kcbrown
04-19-2011, 4:18 PM
Of course you do. Because it illustrates numerous things that don't square with the rabid gun-owner's mentality.
1. Why does a 6-year old have access to a gun?


Because his parents aren't responsible enough to keep it from him and/or train him to properly respect it?



2. Why did he find it necessary to bring it to school?
Because he thought it was cool?


Seriously, you're talking about a six year old here. A child barely out of kindergarten.

You really do think the young adult population is composed of a bunch of immature, bed-wetting children who need their diapers changed, don't you?

Well tell me this: were you like that when you were college age? If so, then way to overgeneralize your immaturity at that age to the rest of the population -- why then should everyone else of that age pay for your past inability to control yourself? If you weren't like that when you were a young adult, then why do you believe everyone else to be so far beneath you?


Such conceit. Such arrogance. The very foundation of tyranny.



So why not arm ALL the 6-year olds, so they can all be equally protected?...And I doubt you'll find a story about a 6-year old driving a car that injured three other people...
If you think that the typical 18 to 20 year old has no more maturity and responsibility than a six year old, then there's nothing more to discuss. You're wrong and that's that.

If you don't think that then you've just blown your own argument out of the water.



As you know, most college students are between 18-24. I agree that most CCw carriers are lawful. I just don't think that many of them fall into the category we are discussing.And what, exactly, are you basing this on?

CHS
04-19-2011, 4:34 PM
Violator, the difference between the 6YO example and the college kids is that the college kids are ALREADY lawfully allowed to purchase, own, possess, use and carry concealed and openly rifles, shotguns, and handguns in almost all of the 50 states.

So the question is, why do YOU ALREADY trust them in the millions of square miles that make up the United States, but not a few acres in Arizona that make up campuses?

Or are you arguing for raising the rifle/shotgun purchase age from 18 and the Handgun/other purchase age from 21? At what age should people be allowed to start exercising their 2nd amendment rights if these "20-somethings" can't?

FYI, I was in high school when I purchased my first gun, on my own. I was an 18 year old senior who drove myself and a friend to a gun show where we bought SKS's with no waiting periods (back when CA allowed for no waiting period on C&R's). On the way home from that same show, I bought a case of 1200 rounds of ammo. I never shot up any schools when the going got tough.

dustoff31
04-19-2011, 8:23 PM
What is the existing law regarding school zones in AZ if you have a AZ CCW?

AZ follows federal law.

From the AZDPS CCW FAQs page:

What are the school exceptions when carrying concealed weapons?
Please see below for school exceptions (concealed or not):

•You are an adult in a vehicle and the firearm is unloaded before entering school grounds. Furthermore, if you must exit your vehicle, the firearm must remain unloaded and be secured (locked) within the vehicle, out of plain view. Use caution and common sense if you must exit the vehicle with a firearm to secure it in the trunk (avoid causing a potentially serious disturbance)

•You are an adult attending a firearms related class (hunter/safety) or participating in a school program that requires you to bring or possess a firearm and the training or event was scheduled and approved by school administrators. This exception also applies to a juvenile accompanied by a parent, grandparent, legal guardian or a certified hunter/firearms safety officer acting with the permission of a parent or guardian. The firearm will be unloaded before entering school grounds and should be placed in a case to avoid causing a potentially serious disturbance

•Additionally, designated employees of a school may order a person off of school property if that person is believed to be interfering with school operations. School boards may also enact specific and more restrictive rules governing firearms and deadly weapons on school grounds (ARS 13-2911).

Anchors
04-19-2011, 8:30 PM
Yeah, I do. How about this story, not even two hours old::
"6-year-old brings gun to school, three children hurt

- Three children were injured at lunchtime on Tuesday at a Houston elementary school when a gun fell out of a 6-year-old's pocket and went off in the cafeteria, Houston Independent School District officials said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-houston-shooting-idUSTRE73I5E920110419?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true


...now, just substitute '6 year old at an elementary school' with '19 year old at ASU'....but I bet you'll just blow that off. Guns, guns, guns. They'll save the world.:rolleyes:

I had a really long argument about how a six year old is not the same as a 21 year old with a CCW (since more than likely you will still need an AZ CCW to campus carry and not be covered by the broad permitless carry).

I'm 22 and carry my gun all day around ASU/Tempe, into banks, all over the place when I'm in AZ.
I've never shot anyone up. I guess I must just be one of the lucky ones that never "went off"?

I think BDSMCHS sums it up the most clearly and to the point below. Your argument is hypocritical AT BEST and mostly invalid.

If anything, becoming a gun owner has made me a better and more responsible person. I mean that. Someone could scream at me and call me names right now and I wouldn't lay a finger on them anymore. It has also gotten me more involved in politics and law.
It changed me for the better, so what do you have to say about that?

Violator, the difference between the 6YO example and the college kids is that the college kids are ALREADY lawfully allowed to purchase, own, possess, use and carry concealed and openly rifles, shotguns, and handguns in almost all of the 50 states.

So the question is, why do YOU ALREADY trust them in the millions of square miles that make up the United States, but not a few acres in Arizona that make up campuses?

Or are you arguing for raising the rifle/shotgun purchase age from 18 and the Handgun/other purchase age from 21? At what age should people be allowed to start exercising their 2nd amendment rights if these "20-somethings" can't?

FYI, I was in high school when I purchased my first gun, on my own. I was an 18 year old senior who drove myself and a friend to a gun show where we bought SKS's with no waiting periods (back when CA allowed for no waiting period on C&R's). On the way home from that same show, I bought a case of 1200 rounds of ammo. I never shot up any schools when the going got tough.

Well said.
And jeez you never used a firearm in violence even when someone/something slightly pissed you off or bummed you out as a teenager?!
What a shocker :rolleyes:

His argument is like saying people shouldn't practice martial arts until they're 25 since they might kill someone if they get mad because all -25 people have anger and depression issues.

510dat
04-19-2011, 8:56 PM
Careful with that argument.
Ever heard of ADD/ ADHD? Ever heard of SSRI's and who uses them? Ever do any research on the percentage of school shootings that were committed by students using SSRI's? Unless a ccw permit screens out SSRI use, you have a very dangerous person legally carrying a loaded weapon at will on a campus. No thanks.

:confused:

SSRI's are a group of anti-psychotic medications.

Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with psychoses are peaceful and just want to be left alone in a quiet room, it's illegal at federal and state levels for people with mental illness to own or possess fire arms or ammunition.

Perhaps you're thinking of Ritalin, which is distantly related to amphetamine and used to treat ADHD in children, and is actually contra-indicated in psychosis.

Werewolf1021
04-19-2011, 10:29 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.

Utah. Look it up. Your argument is rejected. Have a nice day.:rolleyes:

Blackhawk556
04-19-2011, 10:30 PM
I think she made a good choice in dumping this bill. I'm not at all convinced arming thousands of volatile 20-somethings is the answer to the minute amount of campus violence.

Brewer was correct on this one.
how old are the majority of people in our armed forces? are they in their 20s, 30s, or 40?

uyoga
04-20-2011, 11:05 AM
I think that the real answer to this issue is:

1. The Legislature can override the Governor's veto of the existing legislation (maybe they do not have enough votes).

2. The legislature rewrites a bill that encompasses language that does not "turn law abiding citizens into criminals". If they have sufficient votes for this, then the Governor will sign it as she implied! If she does not, then . . . are true colors showing?

3. Maybe the "limited" carry bill was a compromise between the pro's and the anti's in the legislature, and that's the best they could do - which in the Governor's thinking was deficient, and would indeed "turn law abiding citizens into criminals".

We can wait and see. I'm sure there are legislators in Arizona actively pursuing a solution.

Vipersx911
04-20-2011, 11:31 AM
The way they look at them is that it's politically advantageous to hate them. They don't care about the facts or what is right or good.

I agree with this, it doesnt make me feel good but hey nothing I can do about it at this point. Maybe later on in life after graduation I could run for a policy position up in SAC and bring a few of them to give us a fighting chance for our freedom back.

violator22348
04-20-2011, 12:24 PM
Wow Violator are you contradicting yourself? In your thread regarding Obama's speech about the Tucson shooting, you praised a young, CCW holder for his coolness.



Either you forgot you made the statement above, or your body has been taken over by an operative of the Brady bunch. Joe Zamudio is 23 and really not that much older than the 18-19 year-old kids fighting in our armed forces.

Anecdotal, Non-sequitor nonsense. Zamudio was ONE person in a public area.

Now picture a campus square with 300-1000 people. A black trench-coat guy opens up. Your Super-hero, plus 10-20 other 23-year olds dressed the same way in various locations opens up on trench coat. Super-hero mistakes CCW holder for an accomplice to Trench Coat, and so on, and so on. This is why cops are often at a disadvantge. They are forced (TRAINED) to check their background, then fire.

I'm sure you'll say my scenario is just impossible---could never happen.:rolleyes:

violator22348
04-20-2011, 12:25 PM
how old are the majority of people in our armed forces? are they in their 20s, 30s, or 40?

try reading the whole :rolleyes:thread.

violator22348
04-20-2011, 12:28 PM
:confused:

SSRI's are a group of anti-psychotic medications.

Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with psychoses are peaceful and just want to be left alone in a quiet room, it's illegal at federal and state levels for people with mental illness to own or possess fire arms or ammunition.

Perhaps you're thinking of Ritalin, which is distantly related to amphetamine and used to treat ADHD in children, and is actually contra-indicated in psychosis.

SSRI's are known to suppress or even eliminate the sense of remorse as a side effect of the uptake. This is why the school shooters always were quoted as having 'blank stares' or 'looked emotionless'. Turns them into peaceful zombies mechanically executing classmates. creepy s**t.

J.D.Allen
04-20-2011, 12:32 PM
:confused:

SSRI's are a group of anti-psychotic medications.

Ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with psychoses are peaceful and just want to be left alone in a quiet room, it's illegal at federal and state levels for people with mental illness to own or possess fire arms or ammunition.

Sorry, wrong, try again. It's illegal for someone who has been held against their will due to mental illness to own or possess, and your comaprison of all "mental illness" to psychosis is also wrong.

SSRI stands for Selective Serotonin Reputake Inhibitor, and they are used to treat many conditions, most often depression and anxiety. They are NOT used to treat psychosis, bi-polar disorder, or any other mental conditions considered to make people dangerous. Many millions of people take SSRI's and are very normal people. In fact Prozac is now one of the most common treatments for Anorexia. Would you start denying CCW's to people because of anorexia?

People should not be screened for CCW's or anything else related to guns based on what medications they take. They should be screened based on what CONDITION they have been DIAGNOSED with. Not someone's irrational and uninformed opinion about what medications they use.

J.D.Allen
04-20-2011, 12:36 PM
SSRI's are known to suppress or even eliminate the sense of remorse as a side effect of the uptake. This is why the school shooters always were quoted as having 'blank stares' or 'looked emotionless'. Turns them into peaceful zombies mechanically executing classmates. creepy s**t.

Also a myth.

From WebMD:
SSRI Myth or Fact: An SSRI Will Stop Me From Feeling Anything.

Some people report a general dulling of emotion while taking SSRIs. On the other hand, people whose emotions are shut down by depression describe finally being able to feel again.

These are difficult effects to study and are not followed by the FDA or reported by drug manufacturers. Again, different SSRIs may create different effects in different people.

Bottom Line: Taking an SSRI can change how you experience emotions. If an antidepressant creates unpleasant feelings, you should discuss it with your doctor.

Spetsnazos
04-20-2011, 12:37 PM
Too bad, this would of been a good step for other states like CA to adopt CCW in public. Maybe another similar form of legislation will come up again soon and she will sign it.

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 1:21 PM
SSRI's are known to suppress or even eliminate the sense of remorse as a side effect of the uptake. This is why the school shooters always were quoted as having 'blank stares' or 'looked emotionless'. Turns them into peaceful zombies mechanically executing classmates. creepy s**t.

Are you sure you're not an anti? You certainly sound like one. You use the same arguments, have the same justifications, and use the same reasoning.

To wit: you would make illegal an entire right for everyone in a particular area on the basis of what you think someone might do. You would strip the rights of all to unsuccessfully prevent the actions of a few.

That is not the approach of someone who champions freedom and is willing to accept the dangers that come with it. It's the approach of a statist, someone who would strip everyone of their freedom in order to keep them "safe".

I suggest you take a hard look at where you're coming from. I know your goal is ultimately to help people, and that is our goal too. But your approach is a stifling, suffocating one. Ours is a liberating one. Why do you believe it to be better to be shackled than to be free? If you don't then why is your fundamental approach here to restrict than to liberate?

Durasteel
04-20-2011, 1:34 PM
Anecdotal, Non-sequitor nonsense. Zamudio was ONE person in a public area.

Now picture a campus square with 300-1000 people. A black trench-coat guy opens up. Your Super-hero, plus 10-20 other 23-year olds dressed the same way in various locations opens up on trench coat. Super-hero mistakes CCW holder for an accomplice to Trench Coat, and so on, and so on. This is why cops are often at a disadvantge. They are forced (TRAINED) to check their background, then fire.

I'm sure you'll say my scenario is just impossible---could never happen.:rolleyes:

You call his statement anedoctal, then you open up with a hypothetical?

Secondly, what's stopping this situation from happening in a local park, movie theater, shopping mall, etc.?

Sounds like standard anti-gunner "logic" to me. :rolleyes:

nick
04-20-2011, 1:46 PM
Anecdotal, Non-sequitor nonsense. Zamudio was ONE person in a public area.

Now picture a campus square with 300-1000 people. A black trench-coat guy opens up. Your Super-hero, plus 10-20 other 23-year olds dressed the same way in various locations opens up on trench coat. Super-hero mistakes CCW holder for an accomplice to Trench Coat, and so on, and so on. This is why cops are often at a disadvantge. They are forced (TRAINED) to check their background, then fire.

I'm sure you'll say my scenario is just impossible---could never happen.:rolleyes:

Umm, this coming from someone who used AN article about a 6-year old earlier in this thread to prove his point about "20-somethings", and who didn't bring up any relevant statistics or non-singular facts to back his opinion throughout the thread, while conveniently avoiding commenting on the statistics showing his opinion to be, at best, poorly thought through? :rolleyes:

By the way, Joe Zamudio was one of the MANY people in a public area. What was your point again?

nick
04-20-2011, 1:47 PM
You call his statement anedoctal, then you open up with a hypothetical?

Secondly, what's stopping this situation from happening in a local park, movie theater, shopping mall, etc.?

Sounds like standard anti-gunner "logic" to me. :rolleyes:

College campuses are "special". You cross the invisible line, and the world changes.

violator22348
04-20-2011, 2:07 PM
Umm, this coming from someone who used AN article about a 6-year old earlier in this thread to prove his point about "20-somethings", and who didn't bring up any relevant statistics or non-singular facts to back his opinion throughout the thread, while conveniently avoiding commenting on the statistics showing his opinion to be, at best, poorly thought through? :rolleyes:

By the way, Joe Zamudio was one of the MANY people in a public area. What was your point again?

There are no 'statistics' on the issue of students armed to the teeth on college campuses, because Utah is the only state that allows this, and Utah is sparsely populated state. Perhaps when there is a shooting there, we'll know more. Joe Zamudio was the only one with a gun WHICH HE DID NOT USE. Do not manipulate my comments for your use.

But, it's pretty obvious by now that you would rather engage in mental masturbation than debate reality. You're a kook who wants to arm everyone, everywhere in the addle-pated mentality that guns are the panacea for everything. I've grown bored here.
Ta-ta!

mofugly13
04-20-2011, 2:15 PM
SSRI's are known to suppress or even eliminate the sense of remorse as a side effect of the uptake. This is why the school shooters always were quoted as having 'blank stares' or 'looked emotionless'. Turns them into peaceful zombies mechanically executing classmates. creepy s**t.

Are you Mike Summitt (https://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign?sk=wall)?

Your arguments are eerily similar...

J.D.Allen
04-20-2011, 2:18 PM
I've grown bored here.
Ta-ta!

Good riddance troll

violator22348
04-20-2011, 2:18 PM
Are you sure you're not an anti? You would strip the rights of all to unsuccessfully prevent the actions of a few.

You do not have such a right to 'strip', unless you are a student in Utah. Specious argument on your part. I know you'd like to believe you can carry a gun wherever you want, but it's fantasy. I used to think like you. Thought 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'. Then I started my post-secondary education, and saw how pathetically stupid most Americans are, and how we're fed a constant diet of glorified violence coupled with the false flags of righteous retribution, etc. The facts are that the group of people who should be denied their second amendment rights is a growing one (drug users, domestic violence offenders, psychotropic drug patients, felons, alcoholics, etc. ad nauseum).

But it's you guys who want everyone to be armed, in the false hope that Joe Average won't accidentally drop two or three innocent kids as he's double-tapping the Black Trench Coat Guy in his isoceles stance. No, unless you want to tax and then pay for every single CCW holder to go through a 13-week firearms training program identical to what police go through, I'm voting against any measure to allow Generation-X to walk into English Lit with a Sig 229.

violator22348
04-20-2011, 2:21 PM
Good riddance troll

Disagree = 'troll':rolleyes:.....typical

You'd make good little liberal over on Daily Kos.

violator22348
04-20-2011, 2:22 PM
Are you Mike Summitt (https://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign?sk=wall)?

Your arguments are eerily similar...

maybe, maybe not...who's to say or not say?:)

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 2:22 PM
There are no 'statistics' on the issue of students armed to the teeth on college campuses, because Utah is the only state that allows this, and Utah is sparsely populated state. Perhaps when there is a shooting there, we'll know more.


That is quite irrelevant. Statistics are not a valid criteria for the violation of a fundamental right.



But, it's pretty obvious by now that you would rather engage in mental masturbation than debate reality. You're a kook who wants to arm everyone, everywhere in the addle-pated mentality that guns are the panacea for everything. I've grown bored here.
Ta-ta!No, he's someone who wants the fundamental right to keep and bear arms to be properly respected. You quite obviously don't believe that right to be fundamental at all, because if you did then you wouldn't be arguing for its removal on the basis of hypothetical scenarios and inapplicable events.

If you wish to take your "rights for me but not for thee" attitude elsewhere, we certainly won't stop you.

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 2:24 PM
You do not have such a right to 'strip', unless you are a student in Utah.


Excuse me?

Since when have rights, and most especially the right to keep and bear arms, been granted by the state?


The rest of your logic fails as a result of that error on your part. You assume your own conclusion by defining the right based on the laws in force at the time.

Note that by your own logic here, you do not have, and have not had for quite some time, the right to keep and bear functional firearms in urban public areas at all here in California.

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 2:29 PM
The facts are that the group of people who should be denied their second amendment rights is a growing one (drug users, domestic violence offenders, psychotropic drug patients, felons, alcoholics, etc. ad nauseum).


If there are some people that really must have their rights stripped from them because there is no reasonable alternative, then that is what will happen.

But that's not what you're advocating. You're advocating for stripping the rights from all who happen to be in a particular area. And that is a very different thing.


Please keep your arguments consistent.

El Toro
04-20-2011, 2:52 PM
You do not have such a right to 'strip', unless you are a student in Utah. Specious argument on your part. I know you'd like to believe you can carry a gun wherever you want, but it's fantasy. I used to think like you. Thought 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'. Then I started my post-secondary education, and saw how pathetically stupid most Americans are, and how we're fed a constant diet of glorified violence coupled with the false flags of righteous retribution, etc. The facts are that the group of people who should be denied their second amendment rights is a growing one (drug users, domestic violence offenders, psychotropic drug patients, felons, alcoholics, etc. ad nauseum).

But it's you guys who want everyone to be armed, in the false hope that Joe Average won't accidentally drop two or three innocent kids as he's double-tapping the Black Trench Coat Guy in his isoceles stance. No, unless you want to tax and then pay for every single CCW holder to go through a 13-week firearms training program identical to what police go through, I'm voting against any measure to allow Generation-X to walk into English Lit with a Sig 229.

Actually Violator,

You are the one making specious arguments. I might add that they are filled with a certain amount of 'Elitism' considering your enlightened post-secondary experience. The true meaning of freedom is that 'All Men are Equal', not just those who have years of education in various Arts, Sciences and Philosophy. The only exception to this rule is when a 'Man' has lost the trust of society through his/her deceit or violence to others (aka a felon) or when they can no longer be considered a 'whole man' due to some mental incapacity such as those who suffer from schizophrenia and other debilitating illnesses.

No one here would argue to arm a mental patient. In fact, that is exactly one of our problems. Liberals and the Mental Health Community have been trying to downplay mental illness and change the perception that these people are 'Less of a Man' because of it. We need to stop pandering to this crowd and ensure that mentallly ill Americans get treatment as well as a set of virtual handcuffs that ensure they are unable to arm themselves.

kcbrown
04-20-2011, 3:20 PM
But it's you guys who want everyone to be armed


And here is another fatally incorrect assumption on your part.

We don't want everyone to be armed. We want everyone of sound mind to have the option of being armed if they so choose, and for those who misuse their rights to bear the responsibility for the consequences.

Nothing more, nothing less.

J.D.Allen
04-20-2011, 3:44 PM
Disagree = 'troll':rolleyes:.....typical

You'd make good little liberal over on Daily Kos.

It's not the fact that you disagree that makes you a troll. It's your condescending attitude and your statements presenting questionable information as absolute fact.

But I think I understand it now, after you mentioned your "superior" education. You have become something even worse than an anti. That would be someone who pretends to support 2A rights, but when it comes down to it, only supports his own 2A rights, and reserves the right to decide who should and should not be able to exercise theirs.

I thought you had become bored with us Neanderthals and were going to leave. Please don't let us mouth breathers stop you.

Spetsnazos
04-20-2011, 5:36 PM
They need to let college college campuses allow CCW. 20 year olds are fighting in wars...

Durasteel
04-20-2011, 6:01 PM
And here is another fatally incorrect assumption on your part.

We don't want everyone to be armed. We want everyone of sound mind to have the option of being armed if they so choose, and for those who misuse their rights to bear the responsibility for the consequences.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. Some people talk as if CCW on campus requires universities to open gun shops and require students to obtain permits and carry everyday.

CCW on campus will not increase the number of people who decide to get permits. It merely allows those who currently have permits to carry in an additional location.

I plan to get a CCW permit and carry whether my campus allows it or not. If California passes a CCW on campus bill before I graduate, then I will carry there as well. (IIRC, there are no legal obstacles for CCW on campus in CA, I just don't want to get expelled).

Tom Gresham
04-20-2011, 6:12 PM
Brewer is known for polling to find out what she should do.

That's what she did on the Arizona immigration bill.

I'd bet that's what she did here, too.

yellowfin
04-20-2011, 6:20 PM
CCW on campus will not increase the number of people who decide to get permits. Actually I think it might, as a smaller example of how employee parking protection bills certainly can and probably will. I'd venture a fairly large % of people who are gun owners who don't currently have CCW's are faced with the problem that their weekly 9-5 rules out them being armed for most of their days which makes it simply not worthwhile for them.

bubbapug1
04-20-2011, 7:10 PM
She's pretty pro gun. If she vetoed it she had a good reason to.

Spetsnazos
04-20-2011, 8:52 PM
E

I plan to get a CCW permit and carry whether my campus allows it or not. If California passes a CCW on campus bill before I graduate, then I will carry there as well. (IIRC, there are no legal obstacles for CCW on campus in CA, I just don't want to get expelled).

get ready to be expelled if ever caught. They're pretty strict in cali bro.

nick
04-21-2011, 9:45 PM
There are no 'statistics' on the issue of students armed to the teeth on college campuses, because Utah is the only state that allows this, and Utah is sparsely populated state. Perhaps when there is a shooting there, we'll know more. Joe Zamudio was the only one with a gun WHICH HE DID NOT USE. Do not manipulate my comments for your use.

But, it's pretty obvious by now that you would rather engage in mental masturbation than debate reality. You're a kook who wants to arm everyone, everywhere in the addle-pated mentality that guns are the panacea for everything. I've grown bored here.
Ta-ta!

Well, Utah may only be one state, but that's more information than you've provided to support your opinion. The other parallel I drew, which you ignored, was between predictions similar to yours when it came to shall-issue CCWs, the ones that didn't come true. When it comes to college campus carry bills, all they do is allow the SAME people who already have concealed carry permits or carry without one (if the state allows it) to carry on campus. So basically, you're saying that those same people who don't commit crimes otherwise will do so on campus. Since you have everything figured out, would you mind telling me how you came to this conclusion? Would you mind actually supporting that opinion with facts, studies, statistics, etc.? Basically, with anything other than your opinion and a bunch of what ifs? So far you haven't done it, and you just keep ranting about my arguments which, at least, have some support from existing studies, statistics, and facts. Unless, of course, you opinion that you refuse to provide facts in support of (aside from an article about a 6-year old) equals reality, and and opinion in support of which facts and statistics are provided means that the person possessing it is a "kook who wants to arm everyone, everywhere in the addle-pated mentality that guns are the panacea for everything" who "would rather engage in mental masturbation than debate reality". Where's this reality you speak of other than in your imagination? Where're the facts to support it?

And the whole "I got bored here" is the juvenile for "I feel this, but I can't prove it, and I ran out of things to support my feeling, so I'll take the cool exit". Well, guess what? It's not cool, it's pathetic, and people usually realize this when they leave high school :)

nick
04-21-2011, 9:53 PM
It's not the fact that you disagree that makes you a troll. It's your condescending attitude and your statements presenting questionable information as absolute fact.

But I think I understand it now, after you mentioned your "superior" education. You have become something even worse than an anti. That would be someone who pretends to support 2A rights, but when it comes down to it, only supports his own 2A rights, and reserves the right to decide who should and should not be able to exercise theirs.

I thought you had become bored with us Neanderthals and were going to leave. Please don't let us mouth breathers stop you.

Heh, I didn't actually notice the "post-secondary education" part. Sorry, can't compete with that, so I better shut up, being one of the "idiots" and all :)

I probably shouldn't mention 2 MS and 4 BS degrees (year, I was quite liberal with minors :)) from a well-known school in Pasadena, CA. Mind you, they're not in anything enlightened and exalted, just lowly techie things like CS and MIS.

gunsmith
04-21-2011, 10:22 PM
trolling aside, what of this decision of Brewer to not sign the bill.
iirc she said it was poorly written and would turn lawful ppl into criminals, because the law was written only to allow people to walk across a campus not to attend classes etc.

Sgt Raven
04-22-2011, 9:13 AM
I've grown bored here.
Ta-ta!

Well, Bye.