Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? - Page 12

Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

This is a discussion on Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? within the Featured Topics forums, part of the Welcome To DefensiveCarry.com category; Originally Posted by Havok Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome ...

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 355
Like Tree631Likes

Thread: Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

  1. #166
    Administrator
    Array Cricket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome of? They have 4 posts, 3 of which started threads that pretty much reiterated opinions that have been posted many times. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the discussion, but why continuously start threads knowing that you have no intention of being active on the forum?
    On August 9th, we made an announcement about the featured topics and article section here in the community.

    Shortly, you will see a new section in the community for featured articles and topics. We will be using the section (subforum) to post original articles related to topics within the community. Starting new threads (in the new section) will be restricted to admins and/or mods, but all members will be able to reply and discuss the topics. Articles and topics posted in this new section will be displayed (featured) on on the homepage of DefensiveCarry.com, between the welcome message and recent threads, once everything is set up. ANNOUNCEMENT: Featured Topics and Articles
    Before any topic is posted (in the featured area) it will be discussed within the moderator/admin team. Many times, we will use a generic admin account to post it. If you want to discuss the topics, we would love for you to join in. If you hate them and have no desire to participate in the discussions, you can certainly feel free to ignore them completely.

    If you have an issue with this or me, feel free to send me a private message, but let's not derail the topic for those who would like to discuss it.
    Follow DefensiveCarry.com on Facebook!

  2. #167
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by GraySkies View Post
    I don't think they will take up a review of the Heller decision without a case in front of them. Gun rights advocates may just have to go into "waiting mode", and not bring Heller-related cases before the court until such time as a more rational court can be seated. Sucks, but that may be the only recourse towards keeping Heller on the books.
    Maybe, maybe not. Not having a case in front of them didn't stop them from taking it upon themselves to rule on gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Actually, that happens a lot around any Forum (One Post Wonders), and is treated as just as any other thread. Why are you so damn obsessed with it?



    How do you know this? Have you ever discussed this with any of them? No?

    It doesn't matter. It. Does. Not. Matter.

    I guess you don't remember the Multiple Choice test you were given before you were allowed to become a member? Not?

    It also doesn't matter how many posts a member has before they are allowed to ask a question intended to generate a discussion, or what their motive was, unless it is a trolling set-up.
    Im not obsessed with anything, I pointed something out and you are getting defensive about it. Not sure where you are going with this multiple choice test thing, and nowhere did I say anything about a required post count before someone can ask questions.
    baren likes this.

  3. #168
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    22,313
    You've asked about it or questioned it five times now, and we've answered. We are responding to you, not vice versa.

    My question about Multiple Choice tests was sarcasm, to illustrate that we do not "vet" or "approve" anyone for membership, and hence, anyone is allowed to start a thread or ask questions.

    You are the one that continues to ask questions, and question motives behind, "Featured Topics"

    We've responded.

    If I have this backwards, let me know. Post #166 may clarify the matter.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here



    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #169
    Administrator
    Array Cricket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,253
    I don't think too many mass shooters have been stopped by a "Gun Free Zone" sign.

    I have to wonder if a mass shooter would be less likely to choose a location (for this kind of stupidity) if he knew that there was likely to be multiple people in the area that could shoot back.
    baren likes this.
    Follow DefensiveCarry.com on Facebook!

  6. #170
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    22,313
    While it is impossible know how many shootings have been prevented by a GFZ Sign, we do know many are in GFZs.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here



    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  7. #171
    Senior Member Array robbnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Ramsey
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
    I don't think too many mass shooters have been stopped by a "Gun Free Zone" sign.

    I have to wonder if a mass shooter would be less likely to choose a location (for this kind of stupidity) if he knew that there was likely to be multiple people in the area that could shoot back.
    Could probably get some good data by finding out how many "cop bars" in a neighborhood get robbed, versus how many "regular" bars do.
    Then get those number for multiple neighborhoods.
    If they are similar, it would certainly stand to reason that someone is less likely to commit a crime using a gun when they could be facing armed opposition (which is what my guess would be).

    'Kind of like the number of homes with alarm systems that get broken into, versus those without...
    Chicagobill and baren like this.

  8. #172
    Distinguished Member Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    1,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. Not having a case in front of them didn't stop them from taking it upon themselves to rule on gay marriage.
    They had a case before them. Obergefell v. Hodges. It ended up with a split ruling between two circuit courts, and the supremes elected to rule on it due to the confusion in the interpretation of full faith and credit recognition between states that had gay marriage laws and states that didn't.

    If Obergefell would not have appealed, the decision would never have come up, the supremes would not have ruled, and the status quo would have remained.

    Gun rights advocates might have to wait for a more opportune time to get infringements overturned. That is all I was saying.
    rcsoftexas likes this.
    The antis just don't understand the depth of love & bonding that comes with guns - redbirddog5

    2nd AMENDMENT: The gateway drug to freedom addiction.

  9. #173
    New Member Array patriotblazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10
    This shouldn't even be a question. Castrating oneself in hopes that thy neighbor will stop having kids never worked. So banning guns anywhere does what... Nothing except empower evil.

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
    Using Tapatalk

  10. #174
    Member Array stealthygun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    472
    No more gun free zones... it is getting so bad around my area, Northern VA, that If you carry all day and respect all the gun free zones you are disarming and arming again in your car all day, especially if you respect all the posted retail establishments, all the while trying to keep handling out of public view. As we all know the more you handle the greater chance of ND. The GFZ are making things less safe in more ways than one. But more on topic. Yes College campuses are not safe as we have seen repeatedly. My daughter is just starting college now and I was forced to arm her with pepper spray and a small tactical flashlight and send her off to school.
    "To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
    NRA Member, CCW Safe

  11. #175
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by GraySkies View Post
    They had a case before them. Obergefell v. Hodges. It ended up with a split ruling between two circuit courts, and the supremes elected to rule on it due to the confusion in the interpretation of full faith and credit recognition between states that had gay marriage laws and states that didn't.

    If Obergefell would not have appealed, the decision would never have come up, the supremes would not have ruled, and the status quo would have remained.

    Gun rights advocates might have to wait for a more opportune time to get infringements overturned. That is all I was saying.
    You're absolutely right. I am mistaken. Now I can't remember for the life of me what all the controversy was over then, aside from people just not wanting it. But that's for a different discussion.
    rcsoftexas and baren like this.

  12. #176
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    18,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Let's consider a very real possibility that we could be facing in the near future. Hillary is probably going to be our President in a few months. If she has it her way, she will be appointing SCOTUS justices that will try to reverse the Heller decision. Hopefully that never happens. So how could we take a SCOTUS ruling, backed by an official government document written by James Madison saying that firearm ownership is an individual right in the most plain english possible, and all of a sudden another SCOTUS comes in and says it's not an individual right just because they don't like guns. That doesn't suddenly make it not an infringement.

    But they haven't been on the forum since starting this thread nearly 4 days ago.

    Gasmitty- I can understand why an admin/forum owner wouldn't give an opinion on what may be considered a controversial subject, but my point is they start threads just for the sake of starting them and then leave and don't return.

    My question to the two of you is, would you still be defending this if it were any other random person who joined the forum, started numerous random threads, and never revisited them, and never made any other posts? Obviously they are the admin, and I'm just a regular member so they will do as they please, but why not leave the discussion starting to people that actually have an interest in the subject of this forum?
    Asked and answered. The "interest" is for the vitality of the forum, and if you can't understand that, I can't explain it. Drop it and move on.
    bmcgilvray likes this.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  13. #177
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    I understand your point. But, the SCOTUS seems oddly a political rather then judicial when is involves the 2A. How any of highly experienced judge sitting on the SCOTUS bench can't understand "... shall not infringed" over 2 centuries is mind boggling to me, if politics were not involved. It is like what is happening with gun control in California? The State clearing understands the Heller and Macdonald rulings, but they intentional are bulking against those rulings. Why would they push unless they feel confident that the political timing is at their best political interest? The Split SCOTUS and Clinton might be the new POTUS in few months, if so then the 2A rulings will be flipped based on any new facts but solely on their political-biased interpretation of those last three words.
    Havok and rcsoftexas like this.

  14. #178
    Distinguished Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Heart of Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    Quote Originally Posted by baren View Post
    SCOTUS seems oddly a political rather then judicial when is involves the 2A. How any of highly experienced judge sitting on the SCOTUS bench can't understand "... shall not infringed" over 2 centuries is mind boggling to me, if politics were not involved. It is like what is happening with gun control in California? The State clearly understands the Heller and Macdonald rulings, but they intentional are bulking against those rulings. Why would they push unless they feel confident that the political timing is at their best political interest? The Split SCOTUS and Clinton might be the new POTUS in few months, if so then the 2A rulings will be flipped based on any new facts but solely on their political-biased interpretation of those last three words.
    One of the judges, Richard Posner, has publically stated he wants to do away with the constitution & Bill of Rights even though he took and oath to preserve and protect it. He call it outdated & irrelevant today, Lies. And the Repubs allow him to continue ruling. Killary will fill the next two liberal judges and then carrying on campus will no longer even be an issue. She wants to kill The 2nd Amendment.

    The most profound statement in the entire bill of rights was placed in line on the second amendment; "Shall not be infringed"! I find it to be a very intuitive move on the part of our founding fathers. 110% of the focus is how to re define, "Shal not be infringed", a different way so it can be eliminated altogether. This alone is a just reason to see that Trump makes POTUS. Our children's future does matter. Gun free zones could be ruled against according to Dred Scott v. Sandford & Bliss v. Commonwealth. I see the 2A as American defining.

    Every time we allow another ruling which changes the Bill of Rights only makes it easier for another change to be made.
    see https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...ringement.html
    baren likes this.
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne
    NRA member 18 yrs.

  15. #179
    New Member Array 1775Firearms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Elkhorn Nebraska
    Posts
    2

    Guns on Campus

    Yes, Guns should be allowed on College Campuses. Gun Free Zones do not prevent violence. If someone is going to commit an act of violence, a sign posted that the are is Gun Free is not going to prevent that. The 2A states that the rights of the people shall not be infringed on and doesn't designate certain areas where you can and cannot carry a gun. People have a right to protect themselves no matter where they are.

    Matt
    patriotblazer likes this.

  16. #180
    New Member Array patriotblazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthygun View Post
    No more gun free zones... it is getting so bad around my area, Northern VA, that If you carry all day and respect all the gun free zones you are disarming and arming again in your car all day, especially if you respect all the posted retail establishments, all the while trying to keep handling out of public view. As we all know the more you handle the greater chance of ND. The GFZ are making things less safe in more ways than one. But more on topic. Yes College campuses are not safe as we have seen repeatedly. My daughter is just starting college now and I was forced to arm her with pepper spray and a small tactical flashlight and send her off to school.
    It's heart breaking. Virginia is the gun friendly capital of the United States,and it's been. Hijacked by a Democrat governor. Wake up people. They won't come door to door. They'll just legislate you and I right out of carrying your guns. Vote wisely next election people. Pennsylvania is also being hijacked by another ass from the Democratic party.

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
    stealthygun likes this.
    Using Tapatalk

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

should gun be allowed on campus

,

should guns be allowed on school campuses

Click on a term to search for related topics.