In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Should Students Be Allowed To Carry Firearms(POLL)

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited May 2002 in General Discussion
Should Students Be Allowed To Carry Firearms On College Campuses?

YES - The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not stop at campus gates. Students should have the ability to keep themselves safe and it would be an effective crime deterrent.

NO - Protection and safety should be left to the police. Firearms have no place whatsoever on campus.

VOTE.COM will send your vote to the Department of Education and College Media News.


http://www.vote.com/vote/45864483/index.phtml

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • pikeal1pikeal1 Member Posts: 2,707
    edited November -1
    this is a good one. It's amazing how many reports of rape and other crimes are reported on college campuses. Here in Miami, most of the schools are commuter schools (not many people live on campus) and those that take classes at night are faced with having to walk to their cars in the dark. I have heard way too many reports of girls being raped or mugged in the parking lots of these schools.

    Alex
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I do not think a college student has a "federlly protected" 1st amendment right to say whatever they want on a college campus, and I do not think that a college student has a "federally protected"_ guaranteed right to carry firearms on campus. It is up to the college to make that decision, and the students should be putting pressure on the university, and not run to the federal government and cry that their rights are being violated.
    This idea of the federal government as a guaranteor, and rights protector of the individual has done more to contribute to the cidea that the federal government dictates what our rights are, and how much of them we can enjoy.
    STOP RUNNING TO BIG BROTHER, and start effecting change on the local level.

    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RedlegRedleg Member Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This poll is logically flawed. To vote in it, one must already believe (like I do) that you have the right to carry. Furthermore, it addresses 2 issues: RTKBA and guns on campus.

    So, you will have those who hate guns voting no, and those who like guns voting yes.

    The question should be worded:

    Given that every American Citizen has the RTKBA, should firearms be allowed on campus?

    Yes - People should be able to protect themselves on campus.

    No - Police should protect people on campus.



    What do you think...or am I way off base here?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    REDLEG- I had a problem with the phrasing of the question myself. I would answer "NO" to both answers.
    I do think the "second amendment" right to bear arms does stop short at the campus gate.
    But I do not think it is the responsibility of the police to protect college citizens.
    I think it is up to the college to decide, and it is the students responsibility to change the college rule regarding carrying firearms on campus. The second amendment does not protect the citizens from any university, business, etc., from having a "no firearms" policy, and students should not look to some entity(the federal government) to protect their right to defense. They have to do it themselves, through changing the Universities policy, boycotting the university, etc.


    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The 1st Amendment is pretty clear about who is not supposed to infringe it (Congress). What about the 2nd Amendment -- who is not supposed to infringe that right? Salzo, what's your view? Mine is that it applies to both the federal government (obvious) and to the states (as signatories to the Constitution).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • concealedG36concealedG36 Member Posts: 3,566 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Let's take the question a step further. Should any licensed CCW holder, including non-students be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on college property?

    The new Michigan law says yes. As long as the gun is not carried into dormitories or classrooms of these colleges/universities.



    Gun Control Disarms Victims, NOT Criminals
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    When I read the headline of the thread I had a couple questions -- students of what, and how old? My answer might be different below the college level. Kids must learn first, and if they don't learn something like safe gun handling at home, you can't very well give them all a free ticket to pack firearms at school, especially below a certain grade level.

    College is different. You're dealing with people of at least 18 years of age - old enough to marry - and at that point I do think it's a legitimate question. But the poll gives only two possible answers and saddles us with a rationale for each one. If I say no it's apparently because I believe guns have no place on campus and police should do the job. That's not so. On the other hand, if I say yes I apparently am simply supporting the RTKBA for college students. Under these premises, I would have to vote yes, at the college level. I seem to remember when the murders of college girls started down in Florida there were suddenly a lot of armed students, not to mention guys with baseball bats guarding the halls of the girls dormitory.

    I agree there is a problem with predators on college campuses and given only the two stark choices would vote yes. I'm heartened to hear that Michigan has taken a reasonable stand on this as well, if that is the case, though I would not have left out dormitories, because at work or at school, protection going to and from the car at all hours is a major factor, and if you can't transport into the dorm then you can't have it with you going to the car at night, and so on.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

    Edited by - offeror on 05/29/2002 12:26:19
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with Saxon. Meet the State requirements....
    Mudge the succinct

    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BlueTicBlueTic Member Posts: 4,072
    edited November -1
    69% - Yes
    31% - no
    Excuse me Mudge/Salzo - If they meet "STATE REQUIREMENTS". Yeah thats part of the 2nd amendment. I have met the requirements by being a citizen and my FATHER instructed me in the use and safety of firearms. THERE ARE NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS!!!!!!!!!!! What type of requirements would you have them (or Me for that matter) meet??????

    IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)

    Edited by - BlueTic on 05/29/2002 14:36:06
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • airborneairborne Member Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm finding myself agreeing with SaxonPig on various subjects here lately. SaxonPig you are an individual of good insight.

    Only want to add that state laws of the individual campus/college should apply. Then the fact, that state laws are applicable to state residents, if the student is from out-of state this would have to be taken into consideration.

    Confident if students were 'packing' crime and rape rates would decrease. It's amazing how subject individuals become very sheepish if they think you may be armed and trained to use your weapon.

    B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    GORDIANBLADE- Actually, I think that it is clear that the bill of rights prevents interference ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. The states are the ones who are to decide what limitations will be placed on any right. The Federal government is SUPPOSED to stay out of the "rights department". The founders created a Federal government that was supposed to have limited power, and be bound by the constitution, and only have authority in very limited areas(those areas are spelled out in the constitution)The constitution and the bill of rights was not a document that was designed to protect rights of the citizens,but a document that spells out what the limited powers of the Federal government would be.
    The Federal government decided that they would be the ones who decide what rights would be guaranteed for the citizens of the USA, with the advent of the fourteenth amendment. Many view the 14th as the amendment which binds the bill of rights on the states-but what it actually does, is make the federal government the decider of how rights would be handed out.Our rights are no longer divinely given, but are now given to us by the Federal government, and the Federal government will decide which rights we are allowed to exercise. You can bet the farm, that the FEDERAL government will never recognize a guaranteed right to bear arms.
    That right was supposed to be guaranteed by the state, as all other rights are supposed to be.
    I always laugh when I hear the "you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre, therefor rights can be limited". I agree with that statement to a point, where I do not agree with that statement, is the idea that the FEDERAL government will decide where those rights will be limited- the BILL OF RIGHTS specifically says that the federal government cannot interfere with those rights specified, and also any other rights that we have. The political body that is to decide how we are going to limit rights, is the states(they are the ones who will decide that "you cant shout fire in a crowdedtheatre"-not the federal government).
    Think of the absurdity of how our rights our being denied by the Federal government. The founders went to the trouble of soelling out a bill of rights, that spelled out not only specific rights that the Federal government could not interfere with, but also said, that just because certain rights were specifically mentioned, that does not mean the Federal government could limit other rights- those rights would be limited on the state level.
    The founders did not spell this out, and then have some federali come around and say "well rights are never absolute-you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre-therefore we can limit rights"-WRONG! The federal government is completely prohibited from limiting rights in any way-if rights have to be limited, the states are to decide how those rights will be limited. I realize that the people of the United States no longer recognize the states in having the authority to not only guarantee rights, but limit rights-And only the Federal government can do such things. But make no mistake, the FEDERAL government does not want to give you rights-they do not care about us. They will guarantee rights to those they want to guarantee rights to. And those rights they do not like-well they will say something like "You cant shou fire in a theatre, therefore we can limit your rights".
    The federal government wants you to beleive that they have no desire to take away your rights-that is why they say the 14th amendment is there to protect you. But what the 14th amendment does, is allows the Federal government to decide how much of our rights can be exercised-and the Federal government does not really want us to be free. If they did, they would allow us to exercise our right to bear arms.
    And as I stated earlier-there is no way any branch of the federal government is going to recognize that right-Executive,legislative, or JUDICIAL.

    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • concealedG36concealedG36 Member Posts: 3,566 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    offeror, it can get very sticky with the specific restrictions on concealed carry in Michigan. For example, one of my largest clients is a college. I routinely carry thousands of dollars worth of equipment into less-than-desirable neighborhoods when doing field-technician work and I am very happy to be able to carry a pistol. But, when I do the same work on campus I have to be VERY careful about crossing into classrooms. Well, what if I'm troubleshooting a network and the fiber optics run through a classroom? Or, what if a major wiring closet is in the back of a classroom? Am I supposed to go all the way back to my car to remove my firearm? Or, do I break the law? I suppose some might say I shouldn't carry my firearm if there is a possibility that I might need to do that type of work, but I disagree. I feel the most dangerous time is when I'm walking from my truck, through narrow corridors with all of my equipment. And, sometimes I have to work until after dark. I don't know of anybody who looks forward to walking several hundred meters in the dark with a ton of expensive computer equipment in the middle of Detroit.

    Again, my vote is YES. Students and non-students should have the right to defend themselves at college (or anywhere else for that matter!)

    G36



    Gun Control Disarms Victims, NOT Criminals
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ADfreeADfree Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    If the student is 21 and has met the requirements for legal carry, yes.
    I'm from the government. I'm here to help.



    Do you think that someone who is under 21 is not capable of responsibly defending himself?

    I find it mighty disturbing that, because I am 17, I can't legally defend myself. I handle my weapons as safely as possible; I can shoot as well as most CCW holders; I am capable of determining when my life is in danger. Should I be forced to be vulnerable to attack?

    All these BS laws restricting who can carry what where and when are foolish. If I were a 17yo gang-thug I wouldn't think twice about carrying against the law. If someone is planning a murder will they be stopped by the fact that CARRYING is illegal?

    Prohibiting me from defending myself equates to conspiracy to commit murder.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RedlegRedleg Member Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And, Mister 17 year old...in a year you may be drafted to defend yourself with bigger weapons than pistols....and in defense of your constitution. Stupid, isn't it?

    at 18 you are old enough to kill and die for your country, but you can't buy a beer or a handgun.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • EX-SFEX-SF Member Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Redleg,

    I always thought "at 18 you are old enough to kill and die for your country, but you can't buy a beer or a handgun" really sucked!

    I joined the Army at 17, and while on the bus to go to basic stopped in Lake Charles, LA. There was a bar nearby, and I strutted in and ordered a rum & coke. Surprisingly; they brought it to me --- no ID was asked for, etc. I drank it, and was talking to the baggage man at the bus station about it, and he said "Hell, it ain't no big deal son,
    'round here if you're 15 you can drink or get married!". "You look older than 15, that's why nobody asked you any questions!"

    I don't know if that was true or not, but it was the last time I could get a drink at an early age. (Except 3.2 beer on post).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ADfreeADfree Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    And, Mister 17 year old...in a year you may be drafted to defend yourself with bigger weapons than pistols....and in defense of your constitution. Stupid, isn't it?

    at 18 you are old enough to kill and die for your country, but you can't buy a beer or a handgun.



    Nope, I can't get drafted. Can't even join voluntarily. Would if I could though...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Classrooms are the primary indoctrination centers for the Liberals.

    Where you can take Ebonics or Gay/Lesbian Studies and get credit for it, but to suggest a class on Firearms in Modern History or the 2nd Amendment would be revolting and frightening to the students.

    To allow a gun into that equation would disrupt the entire brainwashing system. And that cant be tolerated.

    The school system is so back-asswards right now, I dont even know where to start.

    I think minors should be allowed to carry concealed if they can demonstrate stability, maturity, safety, studiousness, and an ability to handle the weapon. I know lots of minors who I'd trust with a gun over a 21 year old gangbanger or an alcoholic 45-year old wifebeater any day.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In theory, bearing arms in the Army at 18 is not the same as carrying your own firearm as a civilian at 18, because in the Army, someone is there telling you, "Shoot at that guy," and "Don't shoot at the other guy." In other words, at 18 you are assumed to be smart enough to be trained to follow orders but not smart enough to think for yourself.

    That's the theory. Of course, in practice there are some 18 year olds who have the good judgment to carry a concealed weapon (a minority) and some 30 year olds who don't (again, a minority, I think). Then again, in the state where I live (NY), no civilian is deemed worthy of carrying a concealed weapon except in unusual circumstances.

    Salzo and I disagree on whether the states are bound by the Bill of Rights. I claim they are unless otherwise specified (1st Amendment) because they all signed the thing. For example, Article 1, Section 10, specifically applies to states, not the federal government. As far as the federal government's overstepping the clear powers set out in the Constitution, on that I am in full agreement with Salzo.

    And I also agree that the federal government has grown too repressive in its definitions of how rights can be limited. "You can't shout, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," has gone too far. The latest limitation, of course, is that "You can't shout, 'Senator Kennedy is a jerk!' in a crowded election."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    mmmm! Must include the right to destructive devices,in a group attack
    if you are overpowered you have the option of pulling that pin from your AP grenade and take a few off them to "heck" with you...

    I am more serious ,I will love to carry a briefcase nuke with the miniature MI mark 250 dial a yield surely I bet I get all As in the classes HEHEHE !

    Poor choice of destiny make thoose that for upholding the law go against the "LAW".
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • n4thethrilln4thethrill Member Posts: 366 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    if they meet all of the state req.for ccw sure why not


    "an armed americia is a safe americia"

    you can be king or street sweeper but everyone is going to dance with the reaper
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.