^Yep. Just liked I'd be fine with any of my coworkers who had a CCP and are able to have them at work, same as me.

Except I work at a gun-free zone. Thank goodness nobody ever brings guns on a college campus.

4/8/2014 3:07:14 PM

I'm glad a few of my coworkers don't have guns. And I'm glad some of my teachers didn't have guns. Because some people have uncontrollable tempers and they kinda temporarily lose control of themselves.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2014 3:09:21 PM

Quote :

"So you'd be cool with your daughter going to class with teachers who had guns on them? No caveats, no conditions. Any teacher with a license in your daughters classroom, you'd be cool with?"

i would be no more or less worried than her going to anywhere else that concealed carry is allowed. are you cool with your daughter going to the grocery store? concealed carry is allowed at the grocery store (generally), does that worry you when you go to the grocery store or anywhere else?

but this is backwards, it's your responsibility to explain why guns should not be allowed in schools and not someone else's responsibility to explain why they should. reasonable limits for guns are necessary, but when you want to place a reasonable limit on that right you must demonstrate that it is reasonable and necessary. no one has made the case as to why limiting that right at schools is reasonable or necessary, so it should be allowed.

4/8/2014 4:36:43 PM

Quote :

"but this is backwards, it's your responsibility to explain why guns should not be allowed in schools and not someone else's responsibility to explain why they should. reasonable limits for guns are necessary, but when you want to place a reasonable limit on that right you must demonstrate that it is reasonable and necessary. no one has made the case as to why limiting that right at schools is reasonable or necessary, so it should be allowed."

Could not agree more.

4/8/2014 4:45:15 PM

Quote :

"which is why gun nuts need to start compromising and offer their input instead of just saying "no, that infringes on my rights, i will not participate in any way""

No. "Gun nuts" for however liberally you want to use that label, don't have to do shit. If you want some type of advancement, have those wishing to further restrict rights develop reasonable legislation. Which would include the input of your so called "gun nuts". So far it's been leftists coming up with leftist legislation and then crying about "gun nuts" not compromising.

4/8/2014 4:47:54 PM

after sandy hook we had public momentum for mandatory background checks for all purchases*. we had a public debate and vice president biden lead a gun control task force. no one from the GOP wanted to participate, so we ended up with an included AWB and the effort rightfully died. Had someone had the courage to stand up to the NRA, they wouldn't have been reelected, but we might have mandatory background checks today. The NRA has made sure that no one from the GOP can even have a passing conversation about compromise, you have to be staunchly against anything or they will challenge you in the primary. Even democrats in republican-leaning districts can't compromise or discuss the issue in anyway, the NRA has made it clear that, regardless of hos sensible the discussion, the NRA will challenge anyone. And when the NRA challenges someone, the NRA wins. This is a toxic subject the GOP has to stay away from, they aren't even allowed to admit that we have some problems. If you can't even admit there are some problems, and can't even participate in a discussion, you can't possibly compromise on a reasonable solution.

The NRA owns this issue, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up to them and participate in finding a solution.

(*mandatory background checks wouldn't have prevented sandy hook of course, but that's irrelevant. we had a call to action and public support regardless)

4/8/2014 5:12:31 PM

And the left still had the opportunity to present reasonable legislation and they failed at that.

And you are correct, the GOP can't and won't stand up against the NRA, if they value their elected position. That's an issue with our governmental system, not gun rights.

4/8/2014 5:26:28 PM

Quote :

"but this is backwards, it's your responsibility to explain why guns should not be allowed in schools and not someone else's responsibility to explain why they should. reasonable limits for guns are necessary, but when you want to place a reasonable limit on that right you must demonstrate that it is reasonable and necessary. no one has made the case as to why limiting that right at schools is reasonable or necessary, so it should be allowed."

I'm asking Duke, specifically. I'm not making a broad point, just trying to understand his logic. He's already admitted in this thread (like 6 months ago, I remember the back-and-forth) that he keeps his gun locked up when his daughter is in his home. That suggests to me that he doesn't want a gun on his own body when his daughter is in the room. But apparently he's cool with some random teacher with a gun fetish being in the same room as her and any other students?

I mean, jesus christ. I don't know about you guys, but I had fights break-out in some of my high school classes. High school classes with small teachers. I can't imagine what would fucking happen if a student started acting up in a class and the teacher either used the gun or had that gun used against him or her.

Actually, I can imagine what would happen. I just can't believe that nobody else is capable of seeing the obvious nightmare that would ensue.

4/8/2014 5:33:56 PM

yeh, it's best if only troublesome students come to school armed.

4/8/2014 5:35:18 PM

They won't have to come to school armed at all if they know they can just as easily take a pistol from Mr. Slapdick.

4/8/2014 5:41:32 PM

Ah yes, because the idea was for armed personnel to wear signs saying they are armed and that the firearm is readily accessible to students.

4/8/2014 5:45:44 PM

Quote :

"And the left still had the opportunity to present reasonable legislation and they failed at that."

so your response is that one side has to come up with a compromise all on their own, a compromise that a hostile opposition will agree to, without any participation from the other side? how is that not saying that one side is willing to compromise and participate and the other isn't? i think you are conceeding that the GOP will not compromise, you just don't want to say it.

Quote :

"I mean, jesus christ. I don't know about you guys, but I had fights break-out in some of my high school classes. High school classes with small teachers. I can't imagine what would fucking happen if a student started acting up in a class and the teacher either used the gun or had that gun used against him or her."

fights happen outside of school also, so how does that make school any different? you have to demonstrate why school is different, why it is in a special class that this particular constitutionally protected right should be limited. saying that there are fights in schools is not adequate, because there are fights outside of schools.


[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 5:47:58 PM

I don't give a shit about what the GOP wants to do and I don't know why I'd be afraid to say anything about the GOP. I haven't any political affiliation with them.

My point was, is that if someone developed legislation that 90% of the population actually agreed with, then you would likely see movement. That legislation was never developed. I just said that the GOP members won't stick their necks out first on this issue. If the left wants any movement, they need to develop legislation that the right can stomach and that truly captures that 90% figure. So far, nowhere near 90% of the population has agreed with any legislation; just the basic idea of some type of legislation. The NRA has compromised and worked with the left before and they'll do it again.

4/8/2014 5:52:22 PM

but one side is willing to participate in drafting that legislation and the other side isn't. you even seem to acknowledge this, so I'm not sure why you can't just admit it. the left has made multiple proposals, the right has not responded or stepped to the table. compromise means you have to do more than say "no"

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 5:53:39 PM

Quote :

"fights happen outside of school also, so how does that make school any different? you have to demonstrate why school is different, why it is in a special class that this particular constitutionally protected right should be limited. saying that there are fights in schools is not adequate, because there are fights outside of schools."

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that it's probably not a good idea to introduce a gun into a room that is filled with kids who possibly have tempers (i.e. every public high school in America).


And I don't have to demonstrate why schools are different.

Ever request a warrant for a school official to search your locker? They don't need one.

4/8/2014 5:54:23 PM

so you are saying that the 2nd amendment is the same as the 4th amendment? or are you saying that the court language about searches in schools is the same in regards to guns? neither of those are true.

and yes, you do have to demonstrate why schools are different. for them to search lockers, set dress codes, limit speech, etc... they had to demonstrate why schools were different in regards to those particular rights. no one has demonstrated why schools are different in regards to this particular right.

Quote :

"The NRA has compromised and worked with the left before and they'll do it again."

yeah, in the 60's before they completely changed who they are. the NRA of today attended one meeting for the task force then issued a statement saying "nope, we ain't participating in this". the NRA of today has said, explicitly, that they will not participate in any compromise involving any form of background checks. Here is an example of the NRA compromising:
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/statement-from-chris-w-cox-regarding-universal-background-checks.aspx?s=background+checks&st=&ps=

Quote :

"An article appearing on TheHill.com yesterday asserted that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) is working on a bill with the NRA that would implement universal background checks. NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes. We do believe that records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system."

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 5:56:53 PM

I'm not saying either one of those.

What I am saying, is that giving school officials the right to carry in a school is an unreasonable hazard to the safety of students.

I'm not going to demonstrate it, because I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and you're not a supreme court justice. We can disagree, if you want, but neither side is right because the issue has never been brought to the highest court of the land.

Feel free to become a teacher and sue for your second amendment infringement, if that's the battle you want to fight.

4/8/2014 6:04:32 PM

so you are saying that concealed carry should not be allowed when people under the age of 18 are present in a density above some amount X?

4/8/2014 6:05:44 PM

So I guess you are against LEOs in schools, too, right?

4/8/2014 6:06:22 PM

Schools have an obligation to act in the best interest of students. Restricting guns on campus is well within that.

4/8/2014 6:11:30 PM

that requires that you demonstrate that 1)limiting concealed carry restricts guns and 2)limiting concealed carry is in the interest of the students and that 3) acting in the interest of students is sufficient cause to limit a constitutional right

you haven't done that, you are using circular logic to say that "this particular right should be limited at schools because schools have an interest in limiting this right". it doesn't actually even begin to explain why it should be limited at schools.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 6:13:35 PM

God, I wonder if there is a difference between a cop and a teacher?

What's that, they both have guns? Well then, I guess they are both adequately skilled in maintaining peace and order!

No, dtwral....I'm not saying that. I'm saying schools. I draw the line at schools.. I'm saying that schools are inherently unique. Not number of kids, schools.

4/8/2014 6:15:22 PM

so its not actually about the number of angry kids in classrooms, now you are saying its simply because its a school? so schools are sacred or something?

is private tutoring sacred? private schools?

"concealed carry shouldn't be allowed at schools because schools are schools" is not an argument. its not even the beginning of an argument. your position about student density was a much better start.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 6:19:32 PM

That was never my position, dude.

Christ. Schools have a unique obligation to ensure the safety of the children who attend them. That's why the 4th amendment has been "reasonably" breached (whether or not you agree with this is up to you, and I'd argue that there have been instances where the encroachment has overstepped reasonable bounds). But the mere fact that the 4th amendment has been compromised at schools (and these encroachments have been defended by the supreme court) lends credence to the idea that the 2nd amendment can also be curtailed while at a school.


You're arguing just to argue. But the truth is, "schools are schools" is and has been held up as a valid position regarding the constitutional rights of people in a school setting.

Whether or not you like that argument is completely irrelevant. You can argue it if you need the intellectual exercise, but you're not going to overturn any supreme court rulings.

You can, if you care, use my earlier suggestion of becoming a school teacher and suing your way up to the supreme court to have your 2nd amendment rights upheld on a school campus, if you're truly interested in winning this argument.

4/8/2014 6:27:57 PM

Quote :

"that requires that you [...]"

No, not really. Schools are by-and-large free to exercise their obligation to ensure the well-being of minors in their care as the school sees fit. This obligation is not without bounds, but it is well established in the courts.

I don't believe anyone has sued over a lack of guns in our schools, but feel free to try. I imagine you'll find yourself having more of an uphill battle than the school (unless your wallet is deep). Alternatively, you can change how schools interpret their obligations by electing different school board members.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM. Reason : Also, what sweet Jesus said.]

4/8/2014 6:30:15 PM

Quote :

"God, I wonder if there is a difference between a cop and a teacher?"

You have a lot of faith in your county mounty.

4/8/2014 6:30:20 PM

Quote :

"But the mere fact that the 4th amendment has been compromised at schools (and these encroachments have been defended by the supreme court) lends credence to the idea that the 2nd amendment can also be curtailed while at a school."

sure, its entirely possible that concealed carry shouldn't be allowed, but its dependent on there being a reason. the 4th amendment is not applied differently in schools because "schools are schools", however that's the argument that you are making.

Quote :

"but you're not going to overturn any supreme court rulings."

what supreme court rulings are there in regards to concealed carry on campus that you are referencing?

Quote :

" I imagine you'll find yourself having more of an uphill battle than the school "

why do you imagine that? state courts have allowed concealed carry on campus and overturned bans, why would it be so different at the federal level?

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2014 6:32:59 PM

^^No. I don't, actually.

But I have even less faith in Coach Statutory, the friendly 3rd period gym teacher.

Quote :

"what supreme court rulings are there in regards to concealed carry on campus that you are referencing?"

There haven't been any, to my knowledge. I was simply referring to the 4th amendment in regards to rulings on the reasonable infringement of constitutional rights when on a school campus. I'm merely speculating that the same arguments and similar arguments in favor of that infringement could very well be used to limit 2nd amendment rights as well.


Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[Edited on April 8, 2014 at 7:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2014 6:33:46 PM

then why did you say it would be tough for me to overturn a supreme court decision?

4/8/2014 7:32:50 PM

Quote :

"anti-gun nuts don't listen to facts or reason. they use fear and emotion to justify their affinityhatred for firearms, which is why having a debate or compromise is so impossible."

FTFY

4/8/2014 7:39:40 PM

Except many people don't HATE firearms- they just don't think EVERYBODY should have one.

Jesus fucking Christ

4/8/2014 9:13:07 PM

i'm a gun owner, concealed carry holder, and advocate for concealed carry on campus

we need more gun regulation

4/8/2014 9:20:18 PM

Quote :

"Except many people don't HATE firearms- they just don't think EVERYBODY should have one. "

i mean, i would agree with that.

4/8/2014 10:05:13 PM

Quote :

"state courts have allowed concealed carry on campus and overturned bans, why would it be so different at the federal level?"

Are you referring to colleges? Colleges and universities don't have the same leeway as elementary and high schools. Colleges also don't fall under the same gun-free zone laws.

4/9/2014 12:00:50 AM

Quote :

"Hughes says she cared for the little boy who had minor injuries, and then an angry crowd confronted Utash. "And then they got him and started beating him and stomping him. It wasn't right," Hughes said. She ran over there and told the group they needed to stop. "I got over there and I told them 'Don't nobody hit him anymore,'" Hughes said. "I had a gun in my pocket, I was ready to do some damage if I had to." "

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/retired-nurse-saves-steve-utashs-life-steps-in-when-driver-was-getting-beat

All this woman had to do was yell at a bunch of rioting black yutes and they dispersed.

4/9/2014 1:32:05 AM

should i post an anecdote where that approach didn't work?

4/9/2014 6:16:55 AM

Would she have stepped in had she not been carrying plan B?

Who knows...

4/9/2014 7:09:37 AM

Point being you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. Although in this situation no one would really blame her. Plus, how many would she really take out before they turned on her.

4/9/2014 9:32:55 AM

great point. that we already know.

4/9/2014 9:36:19 AM

i'm not sure what that has to do with gun control, am I missing something?

4/9/2014 9:44:13 AM

Quote :

"Plus, how many would she really take out before they turned on her."

if it was a Beretta.... 15+1....if you're good...

[Edited on April 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM. Reason : or a glock 17 with 17+1]

4/9/2014 1:14:09 PM

Assault weapon sales boom cools off

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/09/news/companies/assault-weapon-sales/

4/9/2014 1:18:15 PM

"assault weapon"

4/9/2014 1:27:25 PM

even though its a trivial definition and "assault weapons" are no more dangerous, it is still an understood phrase so i don't see a problem using it in that case

4/9/2014 1:41:53 PM

^^^^^ exactly. i'm lost on that one, unless we're just hating on the few unhinged rednecks who pull stupid shit like smoking motherfuckers at the gas station because they think they see something that could be a gun in the car...and we're all in agreement about those fuckers, anyway.


^^^^ or an XDm with 19+1!

(not that it matters...you don't have to smoke everybody. Nobody wants to chance whether or not they're gonna be one of the 20 unlucky ones in the group...or if there happens to be one or two crazy bastards who do, there certainly aren't 18-19 more who will want to roll those dice).

^^^ because most people who want one already have 10 now, thanks to dumbshit gun grabbers who won't leave people alone + hysterical right wingers and their echo chamber.

4/9/2014 5:46:15 PM

i hope the cooling off means that i can buy some god damn bullets finally

one of the incorrect claims by gun nuts is that owning guns is a check on the government. this is wrong, your guns won't do shit, but if you believe that here is some porn for you to jerk to:

4/13/2014 10:18:18 AM

Shooting/hatecrime/murder in Kansas by way of a firearm.

Quote :

"OVERLAND PARK, Kan. - Three people are dead following multiple shootings reported at the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park and Village Shalom."

http://www.kshb.com/web/kshb/news/region-kansas/overland-park/multiple-shootings-reported-at-the-jewish-community-center-in-overland-park

4/13/2014 4:27:34 PM

Guy was KKK, head of "Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan", not sure if that's North Carolina though.

4/14/2014 2:26:45 PM

^It was. He was supposedly the Grand Wizard. Also:

Quote :

"According to the SPLC, Miller founded and ran the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1980s. He was forced to shut down after the SPLC sued him for operating an illegal paramilitary organization and intimidating African-Americans. He then formed another group, the White Patriot Party."

4/14/2014 2:32:13 PM

those militia guys are already on a new BLM target

4/14/2014 4:43:47 PM