College students in Georgia want to be able to carry on campus

No one said a thing about campus snipers.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Again, any argument you make against campus carry could easily be applied to the general populace. There is nothing going on at a college campus that doesn't happen elsewhere. From boring lectures to drug feuled casual hook-ups, all these things happen elsewhere.

Saying you can't carry on campus because of [X] could be applied anywhere else. If you don't believe carrying on a college campus is safe you are essentially saying carrying a weapon is unsafe period.
 
If people are considered legal adults for all the liabilities, then they should be legal adults for all the perks.

If, on the other hand, you want to treat the under-21 year old crowd as overgrown kids, then you should not be able to charge them as adults, or require them to pay bills, etc.

Hey, here's a thought - insurance rates are higher for under-25 year olds. Using some of the logic introduced in this thread, maybe 24 and under should not be allowed to drive.

ACA requires insurance companies to allow under-26 year olds to remain on parents' policies as supported minors. Maybe we could treat 25 and under as kids?

But again, if we are going to treat people as legal adults, we need to do so across the board. If folks like oneounceload want to restrict the rights of a block of adults, then maybe folks like oneounceload should push to raise the age of majority, and to restrict "adult" prosecutions of minors.

Otherwise, I'd have to say, with "pro"s like these, who needs "anti"s?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe we could treat 25 and under as kids?
Click to expand...
Actually, the VPC and Brady Campaign do just that when they massage DoJ statistics on youth firearms violence.

even more asinine as more kids get drunk and stoned on Friday and Saturday nights on campus than grab a gun and become a sniper
Click to expand...
Actually, most of 'em get wasted and watch those TFL Staff Gone Wild videos I sent out last year.

Let's do place nice, or I'll start sending those same videos to certain members. Trust me, you do not want to see our bikini wrestling bit.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know what it is about a college campus that some seem to think magically turns otherwise responsible people into John Belushi's character from Animal House. Afterall, we're not talking about anyone owning or carrying a gun that can't already legally do so anywhere else.

There seems to be this idea that all of the "drunken frat boys" are going to suddenly run out and buy a gun just because campus carry is allowed. No one is suggesting that we make buying or carrying a gun any easier for college students than anyone else, only that Second Amendment rights don't magically disappear when one seeks higher education.

It seems to me that many of the people who wring their hands over "drunken frat boys with guns" usually turn out to be former "drunken frat boys" themselves. It seems that many of these people assume that, because they lacked self-control at a certain age, so too must everyone else. This seems like a rather arrogant and closed-minded world view IMHO. Personally, as a current college student who does not drink excessively, has never used drugs, and never been in legal trouble more serious than a traffic ticket, I take personal offense at being stripped of my god-given right to self defense because of other people's lack of self-control and personal accountability.
 
Wrong, and if you read my previous post you would have a thorough understanding
SO let's start again at the beginning for you
IF you can easily separate guns from the frat parties, there should not be a problem with guns ion campus
Click to expand...

Ok, so I quoted the majority of your post, rephrased it into a question but you tell me I'm wrong but you say the same thing as my post. That because of frat parties, campus carry should be illegal. That is what you said right? So nobody outside of college likes to let loose once in a while? So the childishness of a few supersedes the rights of the many?

I offered a remedy to suit your needs that fraternities should outlaw carrying but you said nothing, so it's all or nothing. Ok.

You have your views and I have mine and I will not try to make you change but be prepared to defend your views. And using Girls Gone Wild as a creditable documentary is not a successful way to defending your views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, one of the things that tends to make college students a tad less responsible is that they may be away from home, just like when they go to Florida on spring break, or even to Ocean City.
 
I am concerned about the concept of denying someone their Constitutional rights because of something they “might” do. This seems to be a more and more common philosophy while at the same time being reluctant to hold people responsible for the things they actually do.
 
If we don't hold people responsible for what they do, why are the prisons full? But on the other hand, we have a long history of denying people constitutional rights in this country. It's one way of being conservative. Constitutional rights are priveleges not extended to everyone, obviously.
 
Last edited:
Constitutional rights are privaleges not extended to everyone, obviously.
Click to expand...

Yes, understood I am not an anarchist and recognize that as a society we do place necessary restrictions on certain freedoms. However, as it relates to the Second Amendment it appears some are suggesting that certain adults should not be allowed to exercise those rights because of a concern for something they might do.
 
why are the prisons full?
Click to expand...

In part because we have so many laws. You see, the more restrictive a law is, the more people will refuse to obey it and thus become criminals. In the most basic sense, there are only two reasons that people obey a given law: either they respect and agree with the rationale behind the law or they fear the punishment for disobedience. For example, most people do not commit murder or theft not because these behaviors are illegal, but because they are considered morally wrong by the majority of people. However, most people pay their taxes not because they really want to give the government their money, but because they fear the repercussions of refusing to do so.

When a law is passed prohibiting something that someone does not find morally wrong and the person believes that they can avoid punishment or that the punishment is not severe enough to be worth obeying the law, the person is then more likely to disobey the law and thus become a criminal. This is why laws such as speed limits, seatbelt requirements, and drug laws are broken fairly commonly.
 
There is a certain logic when you suggest people would be more law-abiding if there were fewer laws. Naturally the problems start when not everyone agrees what the laws should be. In fact you might say there's serious disagreement on a lot of them or in some of the details.

Prostitution is legal in some counties in Nevada, you know, although you have to have a license for your brothel. But it isn't legal in Las Vegas. The city fathers (and mothers) believe it would give the city a bad reputation and damage public morals. And Jack Daniels is distilled in a dry county. The federal government has nothing to do with either law. I always assume when people here refer to government, they always mean the federal government.

As to the detail in laws, where the devil dwells, the question of college students and by extension, high school students (why not?), is a question of age and also of place. How old is an adult? Or rather, what should we consider an adult to be? Sixteen, 18, 19, 21 or something else?

And do we ever become too old?
 
For many years prior to 1968 it was completely legal for someone under 18 to purchase a firearm and ammo, I purchased my own ammo at the local hardware store when I was 12, (dad purchased the .22 there for my 12th birthday). Spent my own money, went to the store by myself and purchased a Rem 700BDL and a Ruger revolver at 16. All perfectly legal...never was a problem either.

Same with MJ...to easy to grow locally, harder to tax, and at the time they had the prohibition mentality...and MJ was the "poor mans" "intoxicant" There is no reasonable reason to outlaw Manila rope. Best natural fiber rope in the world. But if you didn't outlaw the rope, there was no way to control the poor mans "demon rum".

That there are people in jail today for failing to follow these laws is such a waste it is incredable. Both of productive peoples lives, and tax money to warehouse them.
 
You could be right. But I recall a discussion from a college class I had, probably around 1970, in criminology. I also had a class in juvinille delinquency, too. When was the last time you even heard the word delinquency?

Well, anyway, crime control was an election issue around then, whether or not it should have been. Election issues have a way of being more emotion than something that makes a difference to anyone or to the country as a whole. You probably know how classroom discussions go sometimes. One person suggested as a way to control crime was to put more people in jail and keep them there longer.

I don't know whatever became of that guy but I think his suggestion got carried out. But prisons are a growth industry now. They have been privatized in a lot of places. We are employing poor people in the country to keep poor people from the city in prison.

I ran into one my classmates from that class when walking down the street in Chevy Chase, Maryland, one day. It's a small world.
 
There is a certain logic when you suggest people would be more law-abiding if there were fewer laws. Naturally the problems start when not everyone agrees what the laws should be. In fact you might say there's serious disagreement on a lot of them or in some of the details.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, correct that the problem is a lack of consenus on how many laws are necessary and exactly what those laws should be. Obviously, some laws are necessary in order to maintain a civilized society. Without any laws at all, we would digress into anarchy. The 64,000 dollar question, however, is whether or not we need the number of laws we've got in order to maintain a civilized society. There are thousands and thousands of federal laws and probably just as many, if not more, state and local laws. Not only that, but many of the laws currently on the books are very complicated and difficult to understand. For example, a very prominent federal law which has been the subject of much controversy recently (I won't specifically name the law in order to avoid digressing into partisan politics) is well over 1,000 pages long. With such a long and complicated law, it is nearly impossible for the average person to even know exactly what is in it, much less understand all of it.

I am of the opinion that most new laws have crossed the line from maintaining a civilized society into being unnecessarily intrusive into our lives and personal freedom. It seems to me that attempting to legislate all of society's problems away results in turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals. This is all the more we should probably discuss this particular issue though as we're getting away from the original topic of the thread.

As to the detail in laws, where the devil dwells, the question of college students and by extension, high school students (why not?), is a question of age and also of place. How old is an adult? Or rather, what should we consider an adult to be? Sixteen, 18, 19, 21 or something else?
Click to expand...

Again, you are correct that the crux of the issue is defining at what point someone is mentally and emotionally mature enough to be entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of an adult. The problem is that there's no really good answer to this as people mature differently (if at all). Insofar as firearm ownership is concerned, I've known grade school children who were, in my opinion, trustworthy with a firearm but by the same token I've known people well into their sixties who I wouldn't trust with a Super Soaker.

The fact of the matter is that we have to draw the legal line between child and adult somewhere. 18 years old happens to be where we've drawn the line, yet for the first three years of adulthood we tell people that they're old enough to be held accountable for themselves and punished as an adult if they break the law, but that they're not yet mature enough to enjoy all the rights and privleages of an adult. This is my point of contention: if people under the age of 21 are, by and large, not mentally and emotionally mature enough to own a handgun or drink an alcoholic beverage, then they are also too mentally and emotionally immature to be married, enter into legal contracts, serve in the armed forces, live alone without the supervision of an adult, get a driver's license without their parent or guardian's consent, vote, or be tried and sentenced as an adult if they commit a crime. If we really believe that people are not mentally and emotionally mature until 21 years of age, then we should simply raise the age of majority for everything to 21 rather than deny 18-20-year-olds some of their rights while saddling them with all of the responsibility.
 
We must have order!

While there are many laws, I suspect more are administrative than of a criminal nature and they wouldn't get you arrested. All the same, it is possible to write a law so that it is impossible to obey. With some laws, such as the speed limit on the highway, it seems more like it impossible to enforce.

In the case of age limits or majority, with respect to firearms, you know there is no uniform age. There are different minimum ages for different purposes and in different places. I do not know if there are any federal regulations concerning age except at the upper end. Logic is easily twisted and stretched when these laws are written or rewritten. Even then, they are ignored sometimes. If a legal juvenile is accused of a particularly serious crime, they may even be tried as an adult, throwing out completely the whole concept of adult and juvenile, yet when the Penn State football fiasco is spoken of, the football players are invariably referred to as children.
 
I find it interesting that so many of the fallacies used by anti's are being brought up here. I cant tell if it is hypocrisy at its finest or if it is some combination of projection, intellectual dishonesty, or "other man" principle.

I was one of those "kids" that worked to pay my own way through school, lived on my own (in a not so nice neighborhood resulting from same), and took care of myself. In fact, I first found this site after being threatened with a gun near my apartment (lurked here for a few years). Despite going to "party school", I took my time there seriously and worked my tail off. Nearly all of my peers did so as well. Honestly, the argument that guns should be banned from campus because of drunken frat boys would make more sense re-framed as a move towards banning fraternities. They seem to cause a lot more violence, alcohol poisoning, drug-use, hazing, and numerous other problems than firearms have on campus.

I would point to the schools that allow legal CCW, but that has already fallen on deaf ears in this thread. Instead, I will also point out that many if not most campuses are dry and in a majority of those states it is illegal to carry while intoxicated (mine does not, and interestingly enough, it does not seem to be a problem). A drunk person in possession of a weapon is already illegal in most places. How is this any different? Moreover, campus carry makes a lot more sense during the day (you know, when you are going to/from classes) where I never saw too many frat parties break out...

Lastly, the issue extends past the campus curb. I had a long drive home after school/work (often late at night) where car jackings were frequent enough to get newsletters about them. I should not only be defenseless while on school grounds, but while I travel to/from them as well - all because of the potential actions by an immature/immoral minority. Again, this is sounding a lot like the arguments used by antis.

Now I am married, own a home, and I am planning on going back to grad school. If age requirements are somehow a legitimate restrictions on rights, when do I earn mine back again?
 
Last edited:
I will be 66 a month from tomorrow and I've never been threatened with violence, that is, not since I was a teenager when I got in lots of fights and have the scars to prove it. I've walked many streets alone in Washington, DC, and London. I had company in Berlin. I've also logged many miles in the woods virtally all by myself. I have yet to see even a single wild dog, though I've seen bears. I've seen foxes but no wolves or coyotes. How have I managed to avoid trouble all these years?

Do you suppose that has conditioned my outlook on things in general, compared with other people here?

It is interesting that someone suggested that the problem is fraternities and not something else. That has been suggested by others and in fact, some schools do not have them anyway.

Here's a funny thing. I mentioned that I had bought a bunch of guns through the mail while that was still legal, literally just before the last day it was legal. Of all the guns I bought, by the way, the one I wish I still had was a .30-06 FN 1949. Nice gun. But I digress. I had all of them while I was at school. I never lived in a dorm or fraternity house. My room overlooked the football statium.
 
I will be 66 a month from tomorrow and I've never been threatened with violence, that is, not since I was a teenager when I got in lots of fights and have the scars to prove it. I've walked many streets alone in Washington, DC, and London. I had company in Berlin. I've also logged many miles in the woods virtally all by myself. I have yet to see even a single wild dog, though I've seen bears. I've seen foxes but no wolves or coyotes. How have I managed to avoid trouble all these years?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are proposing here. I am happy that you have never had a need for a firearm on your person, but that in no way discounts the numerous people who have.

Do you suppose that has conditioned my outlook on things in general, compared with other people here?
Click to expand...

All of our experiences condition us. I grew up in a very anti-gun household where I was not allowed to attend boy scout trips/meetings that involved marksmanship/gun handling. Thus, I had the perception that guns were evil and should be banned. When my girlfriend and I were threatened with a gun in a bad part of Phoenix (near my home), I decided that I needed to learn how to protect myself and that one day I would carry. A gun wouldnt have helped me in that situation, but it showed me that the world is not all unicorns and rainbows. I easily could have gone the other way and lobbied for a gun ban (as many do), but I ardently support our constitution and recognized that the guy waving a gun at me could just still have done me harm with another weapon. So, I took responsibility for myself and started learning how to defend myself and my family.

It is interesting that someone suggested that the problem is fraternities and not something else. That has been suggested by others and in fact, some schools do not have them anyway.
Click to expand...

I dont believe that fraternities are the problem, my point was that I can create an empirical argument that they cause a lot more problems on campuses than firearms have. If fraternities are the purported reason why legal CCW should not be allowed on campus(as stated many times in this thread), then yes, they would the problem.
 
I didn't grow up in an anti-gun house but there were no guns in the house. My father apparently believed they were too dangerous when young children, which I once was, were around and probably unnecessary anyway. I'm pretty much the same but nevertheless I had guns when ours were little. In fact, my son later went into the army. He got out years ago but has absolutely no interest in guns. He doesn't even like them. He was a tank crewman in Iraq for about 15 months. My father was a veteran of the Italian campaign in WWII (and was a prisoner of war). I imagine they had seen enough shooting for one lifetime.
 
Starting in the fall semester of 1965, Salt Lake City, I was a freshman at high school and was also part of the Army JROTC program. I used to walk to and from school with my issued M1. We moved to Long Beach CA in '66 and I was enrolled in the Navy JROTC program. There, I walked to and from school with a Springfield '06 (the Navy's firearm at that time).

At both places, I was also part of the Rifle Team and stored my .22 bolt gun in my locker.

I grew up with shotguns parked at the kitchens back door. I was given a 30-30 by an Uncle, after my first successful deer hunt at age 12. My Dad was a Korean vet, my Uncles were WWII and/or Korean vets (Dad was the baby of the bunch).

Marksmanship was a mandatory part of growing up. Hunting, slightly less so.

I have only ever had to draw my weapon once (I didn't have to fire), outside of actual combat - well twice. But the first time I was just back from 'Nam and that's a whole 'nother story - I never want to have to do that again... But I still carry. In case of extreme need.

So BlueTrain, which of our life situations are more relevant? Personally, I think neither.

What I do think relevant is that non-prohibited adults have the right to carry if they so choose and that the government (in the form of Colleges and Universities), do not have enough of a compelling interest to violate that right.

If the mantra of "Public Safety" is enough to thwart the fundamental right of self defense, then it is also compelling enough to thwart all of our other fundamental rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top