GUNS ON CAMPUS

[Lamron]

I'll use VT as an example, because there is no conflicting state law to confuse the issue. In Virginia it is perfectly legal to carry a weapon (with carry permit) on a college campus. It was only the college policy that prevented it.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

The administration used threats of expulsion to intimidate students into not exercising their Constitutional right. It was a significant threat because many students lifelong financial well-being could potentially be at stake. Being expelled like this would probably effect their chances of being accepted at an another university also.

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Death of several students did "result from the acts committed in violation of this section". Followed by an "OR" for the direct injury portion of the description. It is stated here, and there is clear precedence for holding people responsible for the results of their actions, even if they were unintended or did not directly participate in the crime.



The administration of VT and those assigned to enforce their policies are guilty of violating this statute.

[Death's Shadow]

Apr 22, 2008 17:32:11 GMT -5 @vinsanity said:

Already this week (and it is only Tuesday) THREE high school students at two different schools in our county have been arrested for making threats against their schools. The parents of these kids obviously have no idea what their kids are up to. I hope these three aren't allowed to carry weapons on any college campus where their supervision will be even less than in their own homes.

These wack jobs will obtain the guns off the street, and WILL carry out the shootings anyway.

They do not go into the local gun shop, fill out the paper work wait the 14 day cooling off period, pick up their new gun and ammo, then calmly drive to the nearest campus and start gunning everyone down.

So I as a law abiding citizen am getting the shaft on this one. I jump through their anti constitutional hoops, and obtain my gun legally but can not carry it with me for personal protection. Just because there might be nut cases out there that want to shoot up a campus. HELLO that is why I have the gun in the first place, to protect myself from the wacko that bought his off the street.

When the law abiding citizens are paying the price for the criminals wrongful acts, then we as a society have failed. We need to elect officials that will do what is right. That will assure that criminals bear the punishment for their crimes. Not the other way around.

[vinsanity]

To be a law abiding citizen would require us to abide by all laws, not just the ones we want to abide by. As a concealed weapons permit holder I knew when I got my permit that there are places I cannot carry. In general I respect that as I agreed to it upon getting the permit in the first place. In my area it would be impossible to carry due to the fact that I have to drive into the GSMNP on a daily basis to get to work. I do not unload and lock the weapon as required by law. I run the risk of being caught. I suppose if stopped in the park I could remove the clip but it is a risk I take daily.

[Death's Shadow]

Yes there are laws now that say were you can and can not carry. My point is that the law it's self is not constitutional. It conflicts with your basic right of self protection. To the criminal or wacko the law is no better than the paper it is written on.

Some argue that the security guards should be armed.. I think they should also. But consider this, is there ever a cop around when you need one. Should you expect someone else to be responsible for your safety?

[vinsanity]

No, I do not expect someone around to defend me. I expect that what will be will be in life. I also expect that the law should be followed and respected by all. Of course this will never happen fully, but the vast majority will do so. The Constitution does not specifically guarantee the right to carry firearms. It allows for the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. While as a gun owner I hope that the 2nd Amendment is always widely interpreted, it really does not state that you have the right to carry any weapon wherever and whenever you want. Those who claim it does are seeing what they want to see in the text.

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

...Similar to interpreting the bible.

[Death's Shadow]

At the same time it does not say that you are restricted from possessing arms in a certain area. So for those that blame the gun and not the person for gun crimes twist it and make gun control laws.

[vinsanity]

Gun control laws are necessary becasue not everyone has the sense to control themsleves. The guns are certainly not to blame for the problems.

[RedRock]

Apr 24, 2008 10:07:54 GMT -5 @vinsanity said:

.....In my area it would be impossible to carry due to the fact that I have to drive into the GSMNP on a daily basis to get to work. I do not unload and lock the weapon as required by law. I run the risk of being caught. I suppose if stopped in the park I could remove the clip but it is a risk I take daily.

I know Clinton issued an executive order banning firearms from federal parks, but I thought Bush issued an executive order rescinding Clinton's, so maybe it's ok in the smokies?

[vinsanity]

well.. it is legal to carry them so long at they are unloaded and locked up. BUT new proposals are brewing to make it legal to carry them loaded. Who knows what will result.

[Death's Shadow]

Apr 24, 2008 15:06:04 GMT -5 @vinsanity said:

Gun control laws are necessary becasue not everyone has the sense to control themsleves. The guns are certainly not to blame for the problems.

And again I say.. Why should I have to pay the price because a few people can not control themselves. Those are the people that I most likely have to defend myself from.

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

We seem to have slowly driven off course from campus. Been hangin with Beer too much I think, can't quite figure out which way is up? lol

I don't think this thread will ever come to terms... because both sides have very valid points. I agree with both sides...

Unfortunately thats why there are those restrictions. Because the two side meet in the middle and say people can carry their guns, but only in certain places. Which makes everyone unhappy. Should be guns everywhere, or nowhere.

I do have to put my foot down on one point though. Airports, High schools, junior and elementary schools and government buildings should have bans on weapons, as they all do as far as I know. Excluding armed officers of course. Kids under 18 should have no need to be bringing weapons to school, especially if there is someone already armed in the school. And government buildings and airports for security. I think we have all agreed on those restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Death's Shadow]

I do not agree prez..

While the kids at K-12 are too young to carry a gun. That should not mean that I can not if I go in to talk to the teacher or staff. If I have jumped through the hoops to get the permit to carry,and big brother has deemed me safe to carry. I should not have to disarm to enter the school.

[RedRock]

Right, DS. You see, the PRESUMPTION (and how dare we even question it!!!) by the libs and anti-gunners is that the very presence of a firearm turns normal people into raving dangerous lunatics with no judgment or self-control and always ends in "unnecessary" death and destruction, especially of "innocent bystanders."

Remember Mike Dukakis' answer in a past presidential election debate about would he be for the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered, and he started giving some big monotone boring pedantic philosophical answer about killing another is not the way to ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sorry, I dozed off (again). My answer would have been, "You mean, IF the bastard made it out of my house alive?"

Well, these same people would rather we all be raped, maimed, or murdered, than have us able to protect ourselves, anywhere and everywhere! We are in fact, viewed worse and treated worse by them than they view/treat rapists, thugs, and murderers because of our stance.

Who are THEY to say how many guns I "need" and how often and where and what type? Would they have us keep smooth-bore muzzle-loaders, because that was what the common man (the "militia" which is NOT the police or military) had 250+ years ago, and not upgrade to current effective and safe weapons and ammo? (answer: yes).

And even though the right to own, bear, and carry is clear and backed up by specific laws in many places, ADMINISTRATORS of petty kingdoms (colleges, businesses) impose restrictions for the same reasons, plus the fear of being sued personally or at the corporate level by victims/survivors of nutball firearms attacks on their properties. That's why my earlier thread called for us to change the bad laws and remove the bad administrators, not to accept continued restrictions.

[Urumii-Previously ThePresident]

I should have been a little more clear...

The KIDS should not be carrying guns. If they are deemed unable to drink and smoke until 21 and 18, I don't see why they would (in general) be able to handle the responsibility carrying a gun would entail.

I think it was lamron who said a school shooter has never been stopped by an officer on duty in the school, so there needs to be officers WITH GUNS put into many if not all of the schools. But I do not believe a 14 year old has the ability to 100% for sure be able to handle a gun. Look back to when you all were 14-18. Were the majority of your peers able to do this. I know most people in my school at that age would use the gun for the wrong reasons. Intimidation being the large use of it.


I have absolutely no problem with anybody protecting themselves and their family. There are lot more underlying issues, as vinny and I have pointed out, that make this debate so hard to end. There are many many people just like you, red, ds, lam, etc, but also a lot of people like me and vinny, who don't exactly know what to do.

Redrock, you say these people would rather you be raped, maimed, murdered, etc... That may be what is happening because of their actions, I do not believe in any way any morale, sane, respectable person would ever want that put unto anybody. They are simply stating their believes, just as much as you're stating yours. I'm sure vinny would stand right next to you in a fight if it came down to it, as I would if I happened to be next to someone from our little village. He just has a different opinion than you, as I and many other people do, but to go as far as saying that I don't think is right, and you are trying to make it much more black and white than it really is.

I can understand you are trying to make a point, and I understand that point. But if you really want me and vinny to understand and accept your view, that isn't the way to do it. You are attacking us, not trying to convince us.