2

2/16/2010 12:35:39 PM

if it's concealed, how does anyone know you are carrying?

2/16/2010 12:36:28 PM

Quote :

"but i really think that we should work to eliminate handguns as much as we can from this country. it would take a while, but the long-term benefit would be far less murders/innocent bystanders killed."

yeh, let's just throw our constitution away. we don't need those important amendments.

2/16/2010 12:36:46 PM

the constitution is not some infallible document handed down by god.

2/16/2010 12:38:15 PM

how does eliminating handguns impede our right to bear assault rifles and submachine guns and all that other gay shit

2/16/2010 12:39:08 PM

^^

and

Quote :

"you concealed carry dudes are hilarious you are like the anime dudes who get mad when they can't carry their sword around THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY COMMITMENT TO THE BUSHIDO THE WAY OF THE WARRIOR I AM A PEACEFUL MAN"

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ^]

2/16/2010 12:39:12 PM

^,^^,^^^ those are the worst arguments I've ever heard.

2/16/2010 12:39:37 PM

lol
finally got the wolf alert email

2/16/2010 12:40:32 PM

Quote :

"how does eliminating handguns impede our right to bear assault rifles and submachine guns and all that other gay shit"

the right to bear arms... doesn't say what kind and I don't need you and the idiot lefties telling me what kind of firearm I can bear.

2/16/2010 12:41:44 PM

so does it bother you that you can't own long guns

or

like

a fucking rail cannon

i mean the government is already telling you that you can't own certain armaments

2/16/2010 12:42:27 PM

right to bear arms

2/16/2010 12:43:00 PM

eliminating handguns only hurts law abiding citizens, criminals will still have handguns

i am at least safe enough with my handgun to not harm anyone i am not intending to harm. i don't care if other people want to carry a handgun, but it is my right to make my own decisions about how i chose to defend myself. the 2nd amendment guarantees me this personal right and there is nothing magical about campus that should remove this right.

the problem with the ant-gun crowd is that they try to get people to explain why they should be allowed to have guns on campus. the 2nd amendment gives me that right, if someone is talking about limiting rights it should be on that person to make the case for why the rights should be limited and not vice versa.

2/16/2010 12:43:14 PM

firearms != cannons != missiles

^thanks. precisely.

2/16/2010 12:43:33 PM

then how do you explain that in countries where handguns are limited, that criminals have far less handguns?

^^except that our courts have said that you don't have that right.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2010 12:43:46 PM

i bet if some citizens owned some nukes the govt wouldn't be shitting on us like they do

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : FIRE ZE MISSILES]

2/16/2010 12:44:20 PM

Quote :

"except that our courts have said that you don't have that right."

uh, yeh, they have.

2/16/2010 12:45:42 PM

i mean what about that sawed-off shotgun

2/16/2010 12:46:20 PM

Quote :

"i bet if some citizens owned some nukes the govt wouldn't be shitting on us like they do"

which sort of gets to the core of the amendment...but whatever, keep arguing about handguns on campus.

2/16/2010 12:46:29 PM

the countries where that is true have Orwellian government controls and still have thousands of gun-related crimes.

and no second amendment

2/16/2010 12:46:45 PM

I have long guns. sawed shotguns aren't illegal. good try though

2/16/2010 12:46:54 PM

Quote :

"^^except that our courts have said that you don't have that right."

the surpreme court just recently affirmed that the second amendment is in fact a personal right

2/16/2010 12:47:28 PM

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 12:49 PM. Reason : hah. i'm no legal scholar.]

2/16/2010 12:48:04 PM

Quote :

"Philosophical gun control debate ITT!!!"

2/16/2010 12:48:49 PM

no, they said that the law that amounted to the prohibition of the legal use of a handgun for self-defense is unconstitutional, almost in those exact words

2/16/2010 12:49:49 PM

difference is that that was dealing with DC. not a state.

2/16/2010 12:50:56 PM

Quote :

"In a 5-4 decision, the court said that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather, it protects "the inherent right of self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia said."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/27/nation/na-scotus27

2/16/2010 12:51:12 PM

when the talkin is over
it's time to get a gun

2/16/2010 12:51:38 PM

If we had no sawed off shot guns then Arnold Schwarzenegger would've already shit all over us in the '80's.

Semi-related movie reference FTW.

2/16/2010 12:51:56 PM

from the ruling:

Quote :

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

2/16/2010 12:53:35 PM

isn't scalia the one who was in favor of juvenile executions

2/16/2010 12:54:59 PM

the dissenting opinion was that since it was a district it was not unconstitutional, that was the opinion that lost

here is what they found:

Quote :

"On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."[33] This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.[34] The Court based its reasoning on the grounds: * that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning; * that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity; * that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; * that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939). However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense". The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

the court was narrow in its scope, explicitly stating that they were staying away from certain limits, but they do clearly affirm that it is a right of an individual

2/16/2010 12:55:07 PM

doesn't mean those laws don't need changing

^thanks, I was about to say, the scope of the ruling/preceedings didn't go but so far

Quote :

"isn't scalia the one who was in favor of juvenile executions"

so? if a 16-17 year old is murdering/raping people, why shouldn't he be tried and sentenced as an adult?

2/16/2010 12:55:25 PM

exactly, they were not an issue at hand so the court did not address them. most people agree that reasonable limits are reasonable, but you will continue to see challenges in courts about guns on campuses because no one can make a reasonable argument against it.

2/16/2010 12:57:40 PM

my reasonable argument is: i would like to incrementally remove handguns from law-abiding citizens.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2010 12:58:23 PM

how can you be old enough to die but not old enough to die for your country

2/16/2010 12:59:28 PM

Quote :

"my reasonable argument is: i would like to incrementally remove handguns from law-abiding citizens."

yeh, let's give the criminals exactly what they need and want while raping law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.

^17 year olds can join the military... and die for their country. and since you have to finish high school before joining, it may be difficult for younger kids to die for their country. but that doesn't mean they don't know that killing and raping is wrong and that they shouldn't receive severe punishment for their actions

2/16/2010 1:02:23 PM

My GOD people, what is wrong with you?

You turned a perfectly good thread into a Gun Rights argument when it could have been pictures of black people in black hoodies, along with racist mantras and perhaps pictures of EMCE attempting a carjack.

Shame on your families.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 1:03 PM. Reason : $$$]

2/16/2010 1:03:04 PM

^^yep!

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2010 1:03:05 PM

^it's people like you that will ruin this country and destroy our constitutional rights

2/16/2010 1:03:59 PM

yeah, you can learn a lot about right and wrong by getting executed

i've got that lined up for my kids right after vaccinations and circumcisions

2/16/2010 1:04:07 PM

^^and i vote! and volunteer for political campaigns! and donate to causes i care about!

2/16/2010 1:05:36 PM

murderers and rapists are murderers and rapists. prison will not fix them. prison is not meant to fix them. you can't rehabilitate them. and even if you could, you could never be close to knowing which ones truly were rehabilitated. these people don't deserve the chance to walk free. they don't deserve to sit in a prison and waste money. they should be executed swiftly and in a manner which is cheaper than life in prison.

2/16/2010 1:07:01 PM

i'm not in favor of the death penalty, you're on your own on that one

2/16/2010 1:07:25 PM

^^because the gov't has never convicted the wrong person of murder or rape. nope. nosirree.

2/16/2010 1:08:28 PM

This is a much too serious debate for chit chat. Take this shit to soapbox. Now let the posting of black people images commence.

2/16/2010 1:09:18 PM

actually, prison (punishment) IS meant to fix (rehabilitate) people...

2/16/2010 1:09:37 PM

MURDERS AND RAPISTS ARE MURDERERS AND RAPISTS

PRISON WILL NOT FIX THEM

MY CONCEALED CARRY WILL

2/16/2010 1:12:49 PM

^^not everyone feels that way
^it may help me not become a victim, HOW DARE I CHOOSE A DIFFERENT WAY THAN YOU TO DEFEND MYSELF

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ?]

2/16/2010 1:13:11 PM

but anyways, what news? A prof thinks he saw him in Kilgore, and the popo popped thru.

2/16/2010 1:13:44 PM

2/16/2010 1:13:53 PM