guns on college campuses?

I was with my friend Amber yesterday, she has a small revolver in her car. It has never been fired, but she doesn't live in the best neighborhood and she knows how to protect herself. She locks her car, in her garage and it is under a lock and key in her sedan. But she also knows what to do when she needs to do it....which, hopefully that will never happen to her.

Fact is, everyone is against guns until something tragic and terrible happens to them.

If you have a gun and someone comes after you, attacks you, threatens your life, you will be damn happy that you have protection....which is exactly what that is...protection...if you are so against guns, get a crazy wild dog to protect you or something else.

You are against it until you need it, then you are damn happy you have it.

and why do people complain so much about gun control? I think it was in this thread where like the second post said...why don't we focus on educating our teenagers how to drive rather then worrying about if they have guns....waaaaaaay more deaths from driving accidents our age.

some of you seem to keep taking sarcasm and making irrational points. Kids on college campuses already have guns....trust me...they do.

Take those guns away from them and see how many girls get raped, how many college parties get out of control, and how many common, and simplier crimes consistently happen.

you won't **** with a dude if you think he is packing, simple

the plan isn't to give kids pipebombs, or to give them AK's or whatever crazy weapons people mentioned earlier....it is that adults, even college students, have every right to protect themselves...there is no reason that right should be waved.....why should it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's obvious to me that people can still have a right to bear arms without having a right to have a closet full of the most powerful weapons available to anybody.

---

Except we know that the FF's were big into defense against the government. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about personal protection.

Quote:

---

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.

---

If the FF's were most concerned about defending against government, wouldn't the populace need to have similar weaponry?

It's hard to defend against this and this with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Except we know that the FF's were big into defense against the government. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about personal protection.



If the FF's were most concerned about defending against government, wouldn't the populace need to have similar weaponry?

It's hard to defend against this and this with this

---

we can bicker all day about what the Founding Father's wanted and expected....we can say that it should be changed, and we can argue that those rules set in place in 1776 should remain the same....etc....i have my beliefs...i think you change with the times....but personal protection with a weapon is perfectly ok....

I believe the FF's believe similar to me in the sense of a smaller gov't. They wanted to break away from Britian and their overly powerful gov't. and start a gov't. for the people that allows the people to do what they need to do....not in as many words.....

Fili you have good points, i'll give you that....but until there is some radical change that allows people to protect themselves from other people, the right to bear arms will stand.

if the bad guys couldn't get access to guns, then no, we wouldn't need them...but since they can, and since they do.....we should be allowed to protect ourselves and our loved one's

and on the sense of hunting, most hunters have been leaning toward bow hunting in recent years....i need to find the article i read this past winter about it.

But many hunters are losing an interest in rifle hunting....that bows are more challenging, fun and cost effective....

If the Founding Fathers were so concerned with defense against government (which I believe they were), I think it would be absolutely baffling to interpret their words to mean "Defense against government...and only government."

I'll tell ya somethign annoying, slightly off topic.....

Why has Family Guy's last three episodes all been completely liberally slanted and pushing their political points? They were the cartoon that didn't do that while others like South Park and American Dad would. why? it's soo annoying, almost makes it not worth watching anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

some of you seem to keep taking sarcasm and making irrational points. Kids on college campuses already have guns....trust me...they do.

Take those guns away from them and see how many girls get raped, how many college parties get out of control, and how many common, and simplier crimes consistently happen.

you won't **** with a dude if you think he is packing, simple

the plan isn't to give kids pipebombs, or to give them AK's or whatever crazy weapons people mentioned earlier....it is that adults, even college students, have every right to protect themselves...there is no reason that right should be waved.....why should it?

---

Except that it has been shown that there is essentially no link between gun ownership, or the right to carry a concealed weapon, and any reduction in crime. Increased gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rates - and nothing else changes.

Do you honestly think that someone with a gun is keeping a college party in control? I think the moment you need a gun at a party, that party is entirely out of control (and not in a good way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Except that it has been shown that there is essentially no link between gun ownership, or the right to carry a concealed weapon, and any reduction in crime. Increased gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rates - and nothing else changes.

---

alright, then ask yourself personally, think like a criminal...which house are you more likely to break into? the one where there is no doubt in your mind that this guy has a gun because he isn't allowed to...

or the guy's house that he could possibly have a gun because he has the legal right to....these houses are next door to each other, which one you going into?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

I bet if Jesus was alive, he would carry a gun. I challenge you to prove that he would be against guns if he existed

---

In Matthew 26:52, which describes the apostle Peter drawing a sword to defend Jesus against Roman soldiers, Jesus tells him to put it away, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

jesus also said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth....so no, jesus had lots of motto's this one is contradictary.

Unless that wasn't Jesus who said that....maybe it's just contradictary that it's in the Bible....i am not sure.

EDIT-yes, it was Jesus who said that to Johnathan

---

Actually: the eye for an eye passage is found in Leviticus in the Old Testament and in the New Testament Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount, expounded on the law. Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)

The passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies and those who harm you.

Well, if I was an all-powerful being, with an all-powerful father looking over me, I would feel perfectly safe without mundane weaponry, too.

But let's not get this into a religious debate.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

In Matthew 26:52, which describes the apostle Peter drawing a sword to defend Jesus against Roman soldiers, Jesus tells him to put it away, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword!



Actually: the eye for an eye passage is found in Leviticus in the Old Testament and in the New Testament Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount, expounded on the law. Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)

The passage continues with the importance of showing forgiveness to enemies and those who harm you.

---

that is a good line to live by....but it doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to protect yourself and your family, and taking away our legal rights as citizens to not be allowed to have a gun is prepostorous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

It is obvious (to me) that the intent of this amendment is to ensure that states may maintain a militia, NOT that everybody should have a closet full of the most powerful weapon of the day.

---

I agree with Filihok!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

I agree with Filihok!

---

i still don't know where anyone is getting that people are going to be filling their closests with weaponry.

The debate is about being allowed the right to have a gun, concealed on your person in your home, or in your car. you should be allowed to do so as it is our God given right to protect our families.

No one has said let's take the right and let's beat it up and carry machine guns and rocket launchers...

having a solitary revlover, a 9, a shotgun, something to protect you and your loved one's in the event that something actually would happen is a smart decision by any man who has a family....you will be damn happy you have it in the case that something happens.....God forbid of course....and you as a responsible parent and family man, need to also understand the necessary precations to keeping this weapon away from your children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

I agree with Filihok!

---

By the way, how do you propose that the citizens maintain a militia without having access to arms?