2nd Amendement Rights
 

Some comments were made by a few in the NIU shooting thread, but as a few people have stated the thread shouldn't be taken over by people discussing their opinions. That is not what the thread is about. So, I decided to start a new one.

People are pissed and saying that when can we start "defending" ourselves. I'm sorry, it is one thing to defend yourself it is completely another thing to allow everyone to carry a gun! Unfortunately, we live in a society where some people just don't give a shit and if we allowed them to carry a gun they would find a reason to shoot it. Gun violence isn't going to go away, but what we need to do, as a society, is educate people on guns. Educate people on the hazards that shooting a gun can cause. Educate people on gun safety.

But, IMPO, getting a gun is too easy in some states so I think it should be harder (emphasis on I, this is my opinion).

As for the schools, seriously, they can only do so much. They are open campuses, it's not like they can make a stream of metal detectors blocking the campus and hire the people to maintain them to check every student that walks in if they are carrying a weapon. Come on. Even if they put metal detactors in the buildings, in reality it won't stop the shootings, if someone is hell bent to shoot up a school (because they are a little on the not so sane side) they could easily do it outside.

As for the 2nd amendment, it states that it is the "militia" who have the right to bear arms, but through time it has been "interpreted" by the states and federal government that civilians have the right to bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ex...ofRights.shtml


Let the arguments and discussion begin.


Also, it is one thing to be passionate about your opinion and to state it in an appropriate manner, it is completely another thing to go off half-cocked and start attacking another poster because you don't like their opinion.

As I've said before, and this whole thread should take on this peice of advice (impo):

"Agree with me, disagree with me, but please respect my opinion"


I don't mind discussing or clarifying my opinion, what I don't like though is people attacking my opinion.

With all the school shootings, this is a very touchy subject, but obviously people need to talk and vent their feelings, their frustrations and thoughts. That's why I started this thread, we just need to be respectful of each other.

This was a good idea.

I agree with you.


...

Sorry I don't have much else to add. :(

Yes, this is a good idea. The shootings at NIU really upset me and I was tempted to say something about gun control in one of the threads but I knew it wasn't the place for it.

Personally, I think we in the United States have a very unhealthy obsession with guns. Did anyone see the recent story about the little boy who shot his sister over a bag of potato chips? I'll post a link if I can find it.

Our society is tending to rely on violence to address difficult situations instead of communication.

I have more to say on the issue, but no time. Hope others post their opinions.

Finally! Thanks for starting this thread.

I agree about education. I think much of the fear among the anti-gun crowd is the result of unfamiliarity with guns and the type of people who own them.

I don't think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I do believe, however, that those who go through their state's carrying requirements should be allowed to do so for purposes of defense. I believe this should extend to college campuses as well. Before anyone has a seizure at this idea, think about how ridiculous it is that in many places, a responsible, 22 year old college student can carry a concealed firearm for self defense in most places...except where he/she spends a huge amount of her time. Additionally, these areas are loudly painted as "Gun Free Zones," which simply assures aggressors that his victims won't have the means to defend themselves.

I know many people worry about accidents and irresponsibility. I suspect, however, that these people don't have many friends who regularly carry a firearm. To be honest, most of the firearm owners I know treat it like having a new child. It is an enormous responsibility and not one to be taken lightly. Accidents very rarely happen during carry, to the degree that I've never heard of one. Also, people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons are VERY RARELY involved in gun violence. Unlike the aggressors who are predisposed to breaking the law anyway, those who go through the process of obtaining a permit show their respect for the law by jumping through the hoops required by individual states. For example, look at the concealed carry on campus movement, whose members are foregoing their ability to protect themselves (in accordance with the law), despite this rash of school shootings. Instead of breaking the law to carry on campus, they're using the proper outlets responsibly in attempts to change the country's mindset.

Concerning the Second Amendment, most agree that the individual right to arms is guaranteed by the provision. Even Greekchat lovechild Barack Obama said as much yesterday.

10 U.S.C. 311 defines the militia as consisting "of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." It also goes on to describe unorganized and organized militia, in addition to the qualifications for women.

What purpose would be served by limiting firearm membership to militia members? The government and the MSM has placed an extremely negative connotation on the term "militia," leading to the presumption that these people are part of fringe elements seeking to destroy the status quo. If the militia referred to is the National Guard, as some assume from Sec. 311, I think there are far too many federal ties within the Guard's organization, essentially destroying the underlying purpose.

As pacifistic as our society may have become, the subject matter of the Second Amendment is necessary to preserve the other fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. If someone kicks down your door at 4am, your security system and the efficient local police may be a moot point. I don't like to say that Vtech or NIU could have been mitigated by a courageous person who was responsibly carrying a legal firearm. However, I think that is the only thing which could have helped, as stiffer penalties mean nothing to those who don't even value their own lives, and we simply cannot allow college campuses to become airports. Someone unfamiliar with firearms will surely say that the death toll would be higher, but I find that highly unlikely. Not everyone is going to rush out and fill out the permit form, do the fingerprinting, take the classes if necessary...to get a legal carry permit. Those who do, are unlikely to start indiscriminately firing their gun. I think Vtech is a tough situation, but NIU could have been legitimately lessened, as the shooter was at the front of the class, and anyone with average handgun experience can do consistent headshots from 30-40 feet (adrenaline not included, of course).

For those who have fear and dislike for guns, I encourage you to find someone responsible and go shoot with them. It isn't a magical weapon of mass destruction, it is a tool many of us use to defend ourselves and our families. In the firearm-owner world, you'll often hear people say things like "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge." Rather, there are usually only negligent discharges, which are fully preventable with practice and safety training.

I realize this is ridiculously long, but a short note on buying/carrying restrictions. While I think safety training and background checks are good, my concern is of the slippery slope form and the chilling effect it may have. I have no problem with background checks. I think most people understand the point of a waiting period or safety requirement, but those two restrictions are still suspicious to gun owners. Look at it from their view for a second. It isn't that we don't think safety is of value, its that we don't trust the people who are proposing such restrictions. Many people on the anti side in this country make it clear that restrictions aren't their ultimate goal. Many suspect that guns aren't even the target, but that the enemy is gun owners, who often vote differently and speak with a different accent than they do. Thus, while we see the virtue of safety classes, our distrust of the people who continuously ridicule us, creates a desire to fight any initiative which would abrogate the right to gun ownership.

www.concealedcampus.com

Shiner--well written. And I can't believe I am saying this--I agree with a great deal of it. As you know, in Texas there are laws that allow people to conceal carry, but then they are prohibited on campus. So basically, a campus gunman could care less about the law--and law abiding citizens could do almost nothing about it.

Ugh. I don't know what the answer is, but I think this is an idea that should be considered.

Rather than worrying about expanding gun rights, why aren't we more concerned about how guns are already being legally purchased and by whom? There were concerns about the stability of the VT gunman before his rampage and his purchase of a lot of ammo didn't give anyone pause. Now it comes out that the NIU guy was both in a psychiatric facility, released from the military for psychiatric reasons and known to go off his meds. Yet he had no problems getting a gun license or purchasing weapons. From this article: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gunmans...14171009990001

"A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak was placed there after high school by his parents. She said he used to cut himself, and had resisted taking his medications.

He also had a short-lived stint as a prison guard that ended abruptly when he didn't show up for work. He was in the Army for about six months in 2001-02, but he told a friend he'd gotten a psychological discharge."
...
"University Police Chief Donald Grady said Friday that Kazmierczak had become erratic in the past two weeks after he stopped taking his medication."
...
"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."
...
"On Feb. 9, Kazmierczak walked into a Champaign gun store and picked up two guns — a Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun. He bought the two other handguns at the same shop — a Hi-Point .380 on Dec. 30 and a Sig Sauer on Aug. 6.

All four guns were bought legally from a federally licensed firearms dealer, said Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. At least one criminal background check was performed — Kazmierczak had no criminal record.

Kazmierczak had a State Police-issued FOID, or firearms owners identification card, which is required in Illinois to own a gun, authorities said. Such cards are rarely issued to those with recent mental health problems."

I totally agree.

I have never owned or tried to obtain a gun, so I don't know what kind of background check is done, but based on some things we've read about recently, it is not doing the job!

It's scary how easily people can buy guns.

Thank you for the link


Leslie Anne- OMG I did not hear about that (the boy shooting his sister)

nittanyalum- definately agree

potato chip shooting
 

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=58451

one of many links you can find via google. the boy was only 10... his sister was 9 at the time of the shooting

This was recently brought to the Idaho Legislature http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

I am not a fan for a lot of reasons, particularly how it contradicts or causes problems in other areas of the Idaho Code.

Your post was VERY well written!!

^^^This is SO very true...especially regarding what I have read on GC since joining. I will leave it at that.

Thank you ASUADPi;)!!

Not to go all bumper sticker slogan on you all*, but I think that when we worry a lot about more restrictions, we limit our analysis to cases, like the recent college shootings, where we have a shooter who acquired the gun through legitimate means and we think to ourselves, no one should have ever sold that guy a gun.

But we kind of ignore all the instances where people have acquired their guns illegally and use them to victimize others. More restrictions on the the law abiding probably won't really appreciably reduce the amount of gun violence; they just make the rest of us easier to victimize.

I'd be all about more gun safety classes, but even more about good parenting and supervision of children generally. A well-supervised child in a "child-proofed" house doesn't shoot anyone, you know? Good parents generally don't don't shoot their kids or associate with people who are likely to shoot their kids or allow them to shoot themselves. (We had a situation in Georgia recently in which a two year old shot himself with his babysitter's gun which was left where he could reach it while his babysitter napped. Sure without the gun, it couldn't have happened; but there are several other factors that could have been altered in the situation to get the same result without restricting guns.)

I'm not sure that it's the guns that are the main issue in most of these family-based tragedies although they sure aren't helping any.

As far as whether we'd be better or worse off in general if more people could carry guns legally wherever they wanted to, I have no idea, but I think we can be confident there would have been fewer college students dead as part of the most recent campus shootings had other students been well trained in the use of handguns and armed. The shooter would have been taken out quicker.

ETA: I just want to make clear that I'm obviously not in favor of arming the mentally ill in case anyone was tempted to spin my post that way. I do think that it's going to be problematic to figure out exactly how the restrictions will work. Is it a lifelong ban if you've ever sought mental health treatment? ( which is only a problem for me because it might make people less likely to seek treatment rather than just preventing them from buying guns) And with the Va.Tech guy, it seems to me that what needed to happen in that case goes so far beyond just not letting him acquire weapons or ammo. He needed to be institutionalized and seems like it was clear long before the crime.

ETA* It occurs to me that bumper stickers reading "If we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns" bummer stickers may not be as common as they used to me, so that's what I'm referring to. The slogan reflects all the usual problems with bumper sticker thinking, I know.

I wish someone would do a statistical analysis of the amount of colleges (two and four year, public and private) by state, and then compare it with the amount of shootings that have happened (I am guesstimating maybe 10 total). I'm thinking the amount is very low, and that a lot of the concealed carry is a visceral reaction to what is very low probability wise.

I imagine shootings on college campuses are low, "percentage-wise," too.

However, shootings everywhere are relatively low, percentage-wise. Why do people who can legally carry almost everywhere else have to abandon that protection to pursue higher education? I have no doubt that the recent tragedies have energized the movement, but I don't think concealed carry on campus should be allowed BECAUSE of the recent shootings. Rather, I think that people who are responsible enough to carry legally in other places should be able to protect themselves and others on a college campus. The status quo simply allows resistance-free targeting.

I fully support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and those prone to criminal activity. However, most states have laws on the books which do this (though I think we obviously need to try and bring in more of the mental stability aspect--not sure how this would occur), and it is simply a matter of enforcing the laws. Other than bettering the efficiency and breadth of background searches, I don't see what further regulation would do. Rather, I think we should continue to make it relatively simple for responsible people to purchase firearms, keep those regulations that are practical and simple (Some states I think should have less), and strongly punish those who violate these laws.

Here is a recent Newsweek article about carry on college campuses. I was incredibly surprised to find that it was pretty balanced, as the traditional slant of Newsweek is no secret. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174