Texas poised to become 2nd state allowing concealed handguns on university campuses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

My brother used to have a gun in his hands when he patrolled past a school in Northern Ireland, does that count? ;)

---

Did he learn something?

Gaddafi opens up the weapons depots to the people and tells them to arm themselves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12576427

Quote:

---

He was shown speaking from the old city ramparts and urging the crowd to arm themselves and defend the nation and its oil against anti-government protesters who have taken control of large parts of the country.

"This is the people that brought Italy to its knees," he said, referring to the overthrow of Libya's colonial rulers. "I am amid the masses, and we shall fight, and we shall defeat them.

---

I hope he has enough arms for everybody. Yes, power to the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Not sure, but I bet the over/under is set at Virginia Tech...You remember the Virginia Tech incident don't ya? That was when the ban of students possessing weapons on campus stop the wack job from killing 32 law abiding, gun control law protected people!

---

And had students been allowing to carry concealed handguns on university campuses then Seung-Hui Cho would have been perfectly allowed by law to have his guns on campus in the first place.

I take it that you approve of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Am I the only one who feels that the possession of firearms in a learning institute is somewhat of a contradiction? I’m sure I’ll get much rebuttal for saying this, but I can’t help but feel that firearms possession is the antithesis of education :mark: .

---

nope, maybe some people should be taught about guns in a formal education setting. Might make them realize it is a tool, just like a chain saw is or anything else.....

We don't need guns on campus unless of course someone brings one there bent on doing something evil with a gun. Then you hope someone sane has one.....

Not a big fan of the idea myself Schmenke, but guns are part of American society traditionally and will be 200 years from now. If everyone else has one, it would behoove one to maybe understand more about how they can be part of society and your life. In Canada, we don't have people with handguns save the cops and the crooks. Look how well THAT works in Toronto every summer....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

nope, maybe some people should be taught about guns in a formal education setting. Might make them realize it is a tool, just like a chain saw is or anything else.....

We don't need guns on campus unless of course someone brings one there bent on doing something evil with a gun. Then you hope someone sane has one.....

Not a big fan of the idea myself Schmenke, but guns are part of American society traditionally and will be 200 years from now. If everyone else has one, it would behoove one to maybe understand more about how they can be part of society and your life. In Canada, we don't have people with handguns save the cops and the crooks. Look how well THAT works in Toronto every summer....

---

But do you believe that a situation where everybody, including the insane and the hotheads, has guns is safer than if as few as possible, including as few insane and hotheaded people as possible, have guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Not everyone in Northern Ireland is a terrorist maybe?

---

Then it counts as educational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

And had students been allowing to carry concealed handguns on university campuses then Seung-Hui Cho would have been perfectly allowed by law to have his guns on campus in the first place.

I take it that you approve of that?

---

Actually Yes.

The law against having a concealed weapon on campus did nothing to stop him so why violate the basic human right of law abiding citizens with a law to is 100% ineffective?

Also if concealed weapons were allowed there was a chance that a law abiding student could have stopped him before the body count hit 32.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

But do you believe that a situation where everybody, including the insane and the hotheads, has guns is safer than if as few as possible, including as few insane and hotheaded people as possible, have guns?

---

I don't really care what is safer....it is immaterial. The right to posses a gun is a inalienable human right....not to be denied.

You could claim that you would be safer if you banned certain kind of speech but it wouldn't matter in a true free society where freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

You could ban cars and we would be safe from traffic injuries.
You could ban planes and we would be safe from Plane crashes.

The fact is Gun Ownership is a right. Those who want to take guns away want to violate my rights. Shame on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You could ban cars and we would be safe from traffic injuries.
You could ban planes and we would be safe from Plane crashes.

---

You would probably let anyone drive and fly without a license and training regardless of age, blood alcohol and disabilities (like 10 year old drunken blind kids strapped with explosives (shouldn't they be free to do so?)), and remove any airport security measures. After all, security doesn't mean anything to you. Do you approve any limits of freedom on anything for any reason, or is freedom the only thing that matters to you? The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not free, would you like them to be liberated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

'taffy rapists'

---

:eek: don't bleet whatever you do ! :uhoh: :s ailor: :dozey: :p

err bleat :arrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Its not a human right but it is a legal right in your country. I don't feel the government in the UK are breaching my human rights because they don't allow me to own a handgun, why would I need one? I'm all for farmers and gamekeepers using them on private land to keep down pests, and for sporting occasions, but as a home owner I don't feel its a necessary item.

If it ever gets to a stage in the UK where you need to defend your house from evil do-er's like is suggested it is in the US, then I'd happily pay higher taxes so law enforcement can protect me if needed. If you've got children and your guns are legally required to be locked away, then the chances are they won't be to hand should a gang of 'taffy rapists' break into my house during the night anyway. Safe as. :s mokin:

---

I do not need nor keep a loaded firearm to protect myself and family. That is what all those carefully placed claymores take care of. And if those fail, I have a small thermonuke device in the attic wired up to a mobile phone, and all i need to do, is push one speed dial button and pow. Nobody gets away with nothing. Just got to be careful and not accidentally dial it by mistake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So there are no assaults, rapes, robberies and murders where you live? No crimes at all? Where is this Shang-Ri-La?

---

It certainly isn't free of crime, but in no way do I feel so threatened as to think that being armed would be of benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It certainly isn't free of crime, but in no way do I feel so threatened as to think that being armed would be of benefit.

---

That is you.....But then again Europe has a history of accepting surrender, capitulation and collaboration. In the USA the only people who accept it are Liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Its not a human right but it is a legal right in your country. :

---

No...It is an inalienable right. Your country violates it and you willingly accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

You would probably let anyone drive and fly without a license and training regardless of age, blood alcohol and disabilities (like 10 year old drunken blind kids strapped with explosives (shouldn't they be free to do so?)), and remove any airport security measures. After all, security doesn't mean anything to you. Do you approve any limits of freedom on anything for any reason, or is freedom the only thing that matters to you? The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not free, would you like them to be liberated?

---

Eki.....You continue to fail to grasp basic logic.

If you actually believe that driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property is the same as possessing a firearm on one's person or in their home then the Finnish Education system is a complete failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

That is you.....But then again Europe has a history of accepting surrender, capitulation and collaboration. In the USA the only people who accept it are Liberals.

---

Such wise words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Such wise words.

---

The truth does seem to bother you.

I don't know why we have any gun restriction except to felons - Got Gun - Pack It

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

No...It is an inalienable right. Your country violates it and you willingly accept it.

---

Wrong.

The right to bear arms exists in the United States because of the operation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Amendments can be repealed.

The idea of amateurs carrying guns is very frightening to me. All sorts of stupid accidents will occur which will cause people to lose their lives. But the Americans can obviously do what they want but if the people feel that they need to carry a gun, the society has failed them since it's the job of the police &government to protect the people. We do have a lot of hunting weapons in this country and the vast majority of male adult population has extensive military training but for some reason I have never thought about carrying a gun in my pocket. Why should I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Eki.....You continue to fail to grasp basic logic.

If you actually believe that driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property is the same as possessing a firearm on one's person or in their home then the Finnish Education system is a complete failure.

---

Driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property have often practical use, carrying a gun on on a Publicly funded road or on people's property rarely have practical or acceptable uses. In Finland, driving a car or flying a plane require expensive training, minimum age of 18 years a medical checkup before you can get a license. I think those should be the minimum requirements for gun ownership too.

BTW, does Texas also allow concealed knives, knuckle irons and axes on university campus, or is it just guns?

In York, it's legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays. But on Sundays, you can go to Chester after midnight and shoot a Welsh person:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hey-i...british-laws-1

Quote:

---

In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
You may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a longbow in the Cathedral Close in Hereford.
In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless in public except as a clerk in a tropical fish store.
In London, companies may vote in local elections.
In York, excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The truth does seem to bother you.

---

Yes, how stupid I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

In York, it's legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays. But on Sundays, you can go to Chester after midnight and shoot a Welsh person:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hey-i...british-laws-1

---

No it isn't.

A Scotsman is a person and therefore killing them is a Common Law Offence with reference to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Homocide Act 1957.

The link you provided although it is a nice story, is a fib.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Wrong.

The right to bear arms exists in the United States because of the operation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Amendments can be repealed.

---

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property have often practical use, carrying a gun on on a Publicly funded road or on people's property rarely have practical or acceptable uses. In Finland, driving a car or flying a plane require expensive training, minimum age of 18 years a medical checkup before you can get a license. I think those should be the minimum requirements for gun ownership too.

---

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.

---

And no law should ever be changed, or just that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.

---

Of course you can, not just with guns, there are ways to do it without guns.

BTW, do you often have to defend yourself and your family from a physical assault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

---

Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

---

It's not about the right, it's about the need. Yours is a sad society if it functions so poorly that you feel you need to have a weapon (which you probably don't know how to use properly) in order to feel safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Talk about a paranoid society. :eek:

---

No, it has to do with a "paranoia" that if you are not prepared and will not defend your freedom on a personal individual basis, then sooner or later, what limited freedom you have, will be taken from you.

That is the heritage of this country, as we did not have a real revolution, but had a developed an independance and reliance solely upon one's own individual self for survival. GB tries to start excercising control that appearred to threaten that independance.

In reaction to that percieved threat, individuals armed with their personal weapons that were an absolute necessity for survival, took arms and fought the British to a stand still. They proceeded to do the same in the War of 1812. While it may have taken a French army and navy to seal the deal, the Revolution was started, fought and kept alive by farmers and other civilains for years before then. Without these civilains, there would have been no Yorktown.

From the begininng of of colonial life, there was no "king" to provide any form of protection, and even at the time of the War of 1812, America was far more free, democratic and "progressive" than Great Britain. Meanwhile these ideals of freedome of speech, respect for individual rights, voting, et al, was something of a much slower, uneven evolutionary process in GB that at one point saw GB under the despotic and tyrannical rule of Henry the Eight, whose later descent into some of the worst abuses of power possible with plenty of torture and murder under the guise of a royal order......until the time of Queen Victoria, it seemed that Britain was under the thumb of a mean and nasty despot, one after another, even with Elizabeth more than willing to hang "traitors' who did not pay absolute obediance to the wiggle of her little finger.

Dump the heritage of these silly, dumb, inbred "royals" whose property wealth was sucked out of the hands of British citizens and continues to be so, even today, then come back and worry about life in the USA.

And then there are the practical situation of today, with out of control violence dominating many parts of the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

BTW, does Texas also allow concealed knives, knuckle irons and axes on university campus, or is it just guns?

---

Never bring a ax to a gun fight !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

From the begininng of of colonial life, there was no "king" to provide any form of protection, and even at the time of the War of 1812, America was far more free, democratic and "progressive" than Great Britain. Meanwhile these ideals of freedome of speech, respect for individual rights, voting, et al, was something of a much slower, uneven evolutionary process in GB that at one point saw GB under the despotic and tyrannical rule of Henry the Eight, whose later descent into some of the worst abuses of power possible with plenty of torture and murder under the guise of a royal order......until the time of Queen Victoria, it seemed that Britain was under the thumb of a mean and nasty despot, one after another, even with Elizabeth more than willing to hang "traitors' who did not pay absolute obediance to the wiggle of her little finger.

---

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

And then there are the practical situation of today, with out of control violence dominating many parts of the USA.

---

And you don't think violence would get out of control more easily if everybody was armed? I do, since most of those who use impulsive violence don't much think about the consequences and there would statistically be more of them in arms.

Tendency to violence is at least partly genetic, so they can't easily control their behavior. Recently they found a gene mutation that increases the odds of violent behavior when drunk. It's more common in Finland than elsewhere. They studied a group of Finnish prisoners and a group of "normal" Finns, and found that the prisoners sentenced for violent crimes had that gene mutations seven times more often than the "normal" people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

---

Yes, if we are to be given history lessons, they could at least be historically accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

The idea of amateurs carrying guns is very frightening to me. All sorts of stupid accidents will occur which will cause people to lose their lives. But the Americans can obviously do what they want but if the people feel that they need to carry a gun, the society has failed them since it's the job of the police &government to protect the people. We do have a lot of hunting weapons in this country and the vast majority of male adult population has extensive military training but for some reason I have never thought about carrying a gun in my pocket. Why should I?

---

There is something in this country called responsible ownership. I am far from what would be considered an amateur at owning or handling a firearm. I learned, as many in this country do, to properly handle and operate firearms at avery young age.
Many people in our country DO NOT feel or BELIEVE that it is the "JOB" of the police and government to protect them. That is an individual's responsibility.

One of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right and ability of the individual to protect THEMSELVES FROM a tyrannical government. I will NEVER assume the government is my primary source of protection from ANYTHING, nor will I ever believe is it their JOB to provide ME with ANYTHING.

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

There is something in this country called responsible ownership. I am far from what would be considered an amateur at owning or handling a firearm. I learned, as many in this country do, to properly handle and operate firearms at avery young age.
Many people in our country DO NOT feel or BELIEVE that it is the "JOB" of the police and government to protect them. That is an individual's responsibility.

One of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right and ability of the individual to protect THEMSELVES FROM a tyrannical government. I will NEVER assume the government is my primary source of protection from ANYTHING, nor will I ever believe is it their JOB to provide ME with ANYTHING.

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

---

So you do not believe in the rule of law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Times change and move on. We longer need to fight our government on the battlefield and defend our homes/castles from 'Robin Hood' style characters with a Smith and Weston. Do you guys seriously sit and worry about your homes being invaded by criminals and defending yourself against government policies you don't agree with packing a piece under your beds?? Should the fourth horseman of the apocalypse ever show up and take away your freedom, I doubt a few landmines and a few carefully locked away guns will do you any good.

A simple 'yes' would have been efficient enough to confirm paranoia. I wasn't expecting something that convincing in response.. :eek: :p

---

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.