fbpx

Type to search

Obsession With Guns Now Infects College Campuses

Featured Post Memo Pad Top News

Obsession With Guns Now Infects College Campuses

Share
Concealed Handguns

The Texas Legislature has just passed its version of campus-carry — a bill that allows students, teachers, janitors, administrators, and anyone else with a firearms permit to carry concealed handguns on college campuses throughout the state. That means students sitting in a library or classroom or strolling through a classic tree-lined quadrangle may be armed.

College campuses don’t have enough problems with student misbehavior? Administrators aren’t frazzled enough coping with rapes, binge drinking, and routine infractions such as cheating? The Legislature had to add concealed weapons to the mix?

The illogic is hard to overstate. This is what one proponent of the measure, GOP state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, had to say: “An armed society is a safe society, so any time you have gun control, there is far more opportunity to become victims.”

Ah, where to begin?

It should be clear from the recent spate of police shootings that even those who are highly trained make mistakes with their weapons. They fire too quickly, killing the unarmed. They shoot bystanders. They miss altogether. What makes the gun lobby think that civilians would handle their firearms with more precision and control?

One Texan who is intimately familiar with firearms tried to persuade the Legislature not to pass campus-carry. Adm. William McRaven, who is now the chancellor of the University of Texas System, said, “I’m a guy that loves my guns. I have all sorts of guns. I just don’t think bringing guns on campus is going to make us any safer.”

The man is a former Navy Seal. He commanded the U.S. Special Operations forces who killed Osama bin Laden. But the GOP-dominated Legislature ignored him.

Clearly, we’re in the grip of a kind of madness, an irrational, fevered obsession with firearms. Sometime in the not-too-distant (I hope) future, historians and anthropologists will study our society’s gun sickness to try to figure out how we became so warped by firearms ownership. They’ll ponder this cultural weirdness just as we look back at the Salem witch trials and the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.

To be sure, the vast majority of Americans are not persuaded that more guns are tantamount to more safety. They know better. Polls show that we support additional gun safety laws, including a ban on large-capacity magazines and broadening background checks to make it more difficult for criminals and the deranged to get guns.

But we don’t care enough. We haven’t gone about the business of isolating this madness, quarantining the fevered, protecting ourselves from the spread. We’ve allowed this infection to embed itself in the bloodstream of civil society.

Currently, according to the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states prohibit concealed weapons on college campuses. Twenty-three others allow college presidents or regents to make the decision. But it seems inevitable that campus-carry laws will spread.

The gun lobby has more energy, more focus, more intensity. Its minions take their odd enthusiasm to state legislatures, to city councils, and to court, where they seek to overturn even modest gun safety laws. They target politicians who dare suggest that not every private citizen needs to own a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

When Gov. Greg Abbott signs the bill, as expected, Texas will become the ninth state to allow campus-carry, and proponents will continue to push in gun-crazed states with Republican-dominated legislatures. Look for some to emulate Utah, which has the broadest (and nuttiest) law, outdoing Texas. Its statute specifically bans any college campus from prohibiting concealed weapons. In Texas, at least, private colleges may opt out.

There is a very real danger that some student will kill another on campus. Or kill a teacher with whom he or she has a disagreement. Or go on a rage-fueled spree and kill several people.

Texas, especially, ought to know better. It was the scene of one of the nation’s earliest spree shootings, in 1966, when former Marine Charles Whitman fired from the clock tower on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin.

Unfortunately, the Texas Legislature has trampled the memory of the dead.

(Cynthia Tucker won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)

Photo: Roo Reynolds via Flickr

Tags:
Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

98 Comments

  1. Marv Nochowitz June 6, 2015

    You can never have enough guns or dead people. With everyone roaming the campus with guns, how do you tell the difference between good guys and bad guys when a shooting takes place?

    Reply
    1. DEFENDER88 June 6, 2015

      If you see someone with a knife or gun trying to stab or shoot everyone he sees – that’s a Bad Guy.

      If you see someone draw a gun and try to stop him – that’s a Good Guy.

      Not likely to be me, since I have been told by some in here they would find a way to sue me even if I stop the bad guy.

      Now if he comes at “me” I will stop him. ps I am a combat pistol competition shooter and shoot way better than most police.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

        There is no way you can out shoot me. I am old, don’t give a$hit and carry two ultra light judges. You would never see it coming.

        Reply
        1. DEFENDER88 June 8, 2015

          Hopefully we wont have to find out.

          My mentality is I don’t “want” to have to shoot “anyone” even the really bad guys. And I don’t see you as a bad guy.

          Before I actually pull the trigger they are going to have to really earn it and deserve it beyond any doubt.

          Reply
    2. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

      If you see a dead one you can pretty well figure he is not the shooter.

      Reply
      1. Marv Nochowitz June 7, 2015

        Really? If every one has a gun then if a shooter enters the room and starts shooting, I expect those with guns will return fire. No telling how many will be killed and by who. The shooter might be dead or leave while the police try to figure out who is who. Everyone with a gun has to be suspect. All must be considered armed and dangerous. Meanwhile the shooter walks away during the confusion.

        Reply
        1. DEFENDER88 June 7, 2015

          You don’t have to guess or theorize.

          Here is a real scenario for you that DID happen:

          The shooter did walk away – and it was because it was a Gun Free Zone and no one could return fire.

          So he shot 80 out of 100.

          Well it cant get much worse than the Aurora Movie Theater (Another one of your Gun Free Killing Zones).

          There were about 100 in the theater, James Holmes shot 70-80 of them since no one could return fire.

          And from his testimony/notes that was one reason he chose that theater.

          Think I like my chances better with concealed carry allowed.

          At least you have a chance.

          Reply
          1. Marv Nochowitz June 7, 2015

            How many would have been shot if guns were not were not available? Someone is shooting in a theater. People are in a panic trying to escape and your going to stand up and return fire? How many do you think you would kill? Or don’t it matter. When the police come how will you convince them you were not an accomplice? Having a gun makes you less safe, not more safe.

            Reply
          2. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

            I see your point, but in a case where a single gunman shoots 80 people I think having an armed person among the victims would be more likely to save lives than cause more deaths. There are better examples to use in making your case. This one works much better for the opposition.

            Reply
          3. DEFENDER88 June 7, 2015

            Well 1st, I am not some chest thumping, gun happy cowboy who has no real experience here and just guessing about self defense.

            You really need to think about this.

            Try to set aside your fear of guns and your bias.

            It cant get too much worse than it was.

            You will never convince me that If everyone in the Theater had a gun(even if only trained to permit standards) and returned fire that “more” people would have been shot and killed.

            You do have to qualify in shooting to get a permit – in this state anyway.

            As for me, I refuse to be shot like a fish in a barrel.

            For sure now, I always carry my gun if going to a theater.

            And most everywhere else.

            If I cant get in with it, I just don’t go.

            You might like to know that while I am old, I teach police to shoot (on a volunteer basis) and I still shoot defensive combat pistol competitions. And I have survived some gun fights, so I know more than most about it.

            I am permitted, state certified, an expert with a gun, you name it.

            Like I said, in this type case, I will take my chances with everyone with a permit shooting.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            You do realize don’t you, that when Alexis went on a rampage in the DC Navy Yard a year or 2 ago and killed 12 people – 3 of them were packing guns and which did them absolutely no good and may have been the reason why some of them were killed – they may have confronted him, I’m not sure on the details. Only that three people carrying guns were among the dead.

            Sorry but your senario is about as much BS as it gets!! When are you clueless gun lovers going to grow up??? And start living in reality??

            Fact is, that it’s the states with the highest concentrations of guns that pretty much lead the nation in homicides by gun!!!! More guns DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE SAFER!!!!!!!

            Reply
          5. DEFENDER88 June 7, 2015

            One thing I do know for sure.

            I hope YOU don’t get access to a gun.

            With your temperament it would be very dangerous for the public.

            You are way to volatile and combative to even be close to a gun.

            You remind me of some of the Red Necks who cant control their temper or liquor and have taken shots at me for no reason.

            Reply
          6. Independent1 June 8, 2015

            Wow!! And you can make totally stupid comments too!! Why don’t you just go off and support more idiocy that does nothing but kill more people. I guess in your mind 30 plus thousand a year isn’t enough, so lets promote more guns so more can get killed!!!!!!!!!!!! What asininity!!

            Reply
      2. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

        Let try a little mental exercise… I realise this will be hard for you, but try anyway.

        A shooter (Student 1 or lets call them S1 for ease of ID) opens fire on a campus in amongst the buildings where guns are permitted and over 30% of the student body are carrying them and kills someone.

        All students in range hear the shot.

        Someone who can see the shooter directly (Student 2 or S2) immediately pulls their gun and aims it, trying to get a clear shot at S1 through obstructions.

        While they are doing that, another armed student (S3) sees S2 with their gun out aiming, mistakes them for the shooter, and shoots them 5 times in the back, killing them.

        Three other students (S4, S5, and S6) hear 5 additional shots, now from closer to them, and look up to see S3 shooting something in the distance or round a corner and immediately start shooting at him but miss.

        S3 takes cover and returns fire at the people trying to shoot him.

        S7, S8, S9, and S10 see one or more of S4-6 shooting at another student and start shooting at them, killing two of them.

        Various other students start firing at those already firing.

        Add up the intentionally dead bodies, the unintentionally shot bystanders who aren’t armed, and tell me why this is a great idea again WHEN YOU CANNOT TELL THE GOOD GUYS FROM THE BAD GUYS.

        Idiot.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 June 7, 2015

          I’m not sure hicusdicus has the intelligence to follow your sequence all the way to the end. If he did, and he’s a typical RWNJ, you’d expect that more RWNJs would start to realize that the more people you have carrying guns, the more opportunity you have for more people to be killed by a gun. Which maybe is why, virtually all ten of the states that lead the nation in homicides by gun, are Red States with high percentages of gun ownership. HMMM!!!

          Kind of curious isn’t it??? High homicide rate/high gun ownership. Kind of refutes the notion that having a high concentration of guns makes places ‘safer’ doesn’t it!!!

          I guess that’s too obvious for right-wingers to comprehend.

          Reply
        2. DEFENDER88 June 7, 2015

          Lets try a “Real” School shooting exercise:
          The shooter went room to room to room and no one could stop him since no one had a gun.
          Add up these bodies.
          The Virginia Tech shooting (also known as the Virginia Tech massacre) was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows), approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide.[6]:92[7][8]:78 The attack is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history and one of the deadliest by a single gunman worldwide.[9]

          Reply
          1. Insinnergy June 8, 2015

            Awesome.
            So swap periodic deadly shootings at separate schools across the US at let’s say the rate of several a year… For several deadly shootings a year at every school across the US… So people can be more protected. This is always the bullshit argument. More guns make people safer! Except almost never.

            By all means have armed security who are clearly dressed as such if you really feel you have to… Make sure they are trained and authorised to hunt down shooters on campus.

            But you arm the student body and the death rate is highly likely to go up at EVERY school. And you won’t need disturbed shooters for this outcome.

            Mix immature, poorly trained, emotionally stressed young adults with guns, drugs, exams, and alcohol and you will have a complete disaster.

            Reply
          2. DEFENDER88 June 8, 2015

            Well I have 2 degrees and 10 years of it so I know what college/university is like.
            I don’t advocate arming all students or all teachers.
            You are right on that point, there would be more accidental discharges(ignorant sh*t by the untrained) and drunks waving guns than anyone could tolerate.

            Licensed Concealed Carry people – students and teachers, maybe(depends on training level).
            I believe there is a middle ground that would be a better balance than having Fish in a Barrel, Gun Free Killing Zones that we have now.
            Exactly what that middle ground is might vary from school to school/State and include different types of resistance, but it should be sought by all.
            Or even better, develop a national standard.
            Some pretty smart people have studied this issue of school shootings. Both empirically and statistically.
            Too much to list here.
            But good studies have shown that active resistance leads to fewer deaths than no resistance.
            This does not necessarily include a gun. It can take many forms.

            Starting with school design at the design/engineering level and passive systems in place.

            But almost always, when a school/mass shooter is faced with someone else with a gun – the shooting stops.
            Usually by suicide. So confronting the shooter with another gun asap “does work”.

            Problem is as we saw at VT it can take 2 hrs for SWAT to get there. Also we don’t want to arm “everyone”.

            A lot can happen, a lot of people can be shot in just 2 min!
            My suggestions – later.

            Reply
          3. DEFENDER88 June 9, 2015

            Well I have 2 degrees and 10 years of it so I know what college/university is like.
            I don’t advocate arming all students or all teachers.
            You are right on that point, there would be more accidental discharges(ignorant sh*t by the untrained) and drunks waving guns than anyone could tolerate. So – Arming “Everyone” – No, absolutely not.

            Licensed Concealed Carry people – students and teachers, maybe(depends on training level).

            A “Defensive Gun ” does work. But has to be done “right”.
            I believe there is a middle ground that would be a better balance than having Fish in a Barrel, Gun Free Killing Zones that we have now.
            Exactly what that middle ground is might vary from school to school/State and include different types of resistance, but it should be sought by all.
            Or even better, develop a national standard.
            Some pretty smart people have studied this issue of school shootings. Both empirically and statistically.
            Too much to list here.
            But good studies have shown that active resistance leads to fewer deaths than no resistance.
            This does not necessarily include a gun. It can take many forms.

            Starting with school design at the design/engineering level and passive systems in place.

            But almost always, when a school/mass shooter is faced with someone else with a gun – the shooting stops.
            Usually by suicide. So confronting the shooter with another gun “does work”.

            Problem is as we saw at VT it can take 2 hrs for SWAT to get there.

            And arming “everyone” is – as you say – too dangerous.

            A lot can happen, a lot of people can be shot in just 2 min!

            As for potential, “viable”, defense with a gun options.

            There are several to consider. That is another long post.

            A “Defensive Gun ” does work. But has to be done “right”.

            Later.

            Reply
          4. hicusdicus June 11, 2015

            How could college be any more of a disaster than it already is?

            Reply
  2. Vernon Sukumu June 6, 2015

    Texas will not allow student to used student ID to vote, but will allow that same student to bring a conceal weapon to school? MAYBE THEY THINK MEXICO IS COMMING BACK TO CLAIM THE ALAMO.

    Reply
    1. Daniel Jones June 6, 2015

      If they care about the place, they need to fix the fucker.

      Reply
  3. jtxl June 6, 2015

    I would be curious to know what party affiliation all of the shooters have. The school shooters. the cops killing unarmed citizens, the highway shooters, the strip mall shooters and on and on. I think when these tragedies happen we need to be looking at their voting records which are public record. Unfortunately we will see campus shootings because of these laws. If I am proven wrong which would be absolutely amazing, we will have to take a harder look at why trained police are killing unarmed citizens. Could anything positive come from this?

    Reply
  4. Dominick Vila June 6, 2015

    When it comes to logical thinking, all I can say about our obsession with guns, it that it is so illogical and pervasive that you have no choice but to think that those that use a poorly written Amendment as justification to intimidate others and impose their agenda on everyone else, are using the Constitution to destroy our society.
    The excuse of having to protect ourselves against criminals becomes a joke when the same people that use it oppose expanding the Brady Act to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain guns to commit crimes.
    The excuse of having to be ready to confront a tyrannical government projects a level of ignorance and paranoia that is hard to describe. Take it from someone who spent 30 years overseas, including 12 years in Venezuela when Gen Perez Jimenez was in power, and about 13 years in Spain when Generalissimo Franco was in power. Trust me, our form of government, our freedoms, and our democracy are the exact opposite to tyranny.
    The solution to this problem is to stop going to stores, restaurants, places of entertainment, parks, schools, and workplaces where guns are allowed. Intimidating law abiding citizens is not a Constitutional right, it is an expression of bullying, fear, and mental instability.

    Reply
    1. whodatbob June 6, 2015

      Intimidating law abiding citizens is not a Constitutional right is correct is correct. If you are unable to see the gun, how can you be intimidated by a concealed gun? Or are you so mentally unstable as to assume every one is armed so you fear all? Dom, that is not what I have come to expect of you.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila June 6, 2015

        A few weeks ago I saw a picture of a few heavily armed men, in Texas I believe, near a young woman holding a sign protesting police brutality. A couple of days ago I saw a picture of a man with a semi-automatic weapon dropping his daughter off at school.
        I don’t know what people like these are trying to prove, or what they are afraid of, but if I was near people like them, I doubt I would stick around.
        I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, I have a problem running around intimidating people, or so afraid of being attacked by someone – or by nefarious government agents – that I don’t think they should be allowed to own a gun based on mental instability.

        Reply
        1. whodatbob June 7, 2015

          You are addressing open carry situations. Texas is an open carry state. In most states open carry is illegal. Your post left the impression that people carrying concealed are intimidating. If you can not see a gun how is it intimidating?

          Open carry is another issue.

          Reply
          1. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

            Open carry is pointless and stupid.

            Reply
          2. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            I think I may call you “Open Carry” from now on.

            Reply
          3. whodatbob June 8, 2015

            I agree with you.

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

          Do gun owners intimidate you? I will tell you what intimidates me. Multiple violent thugs closing in on me on a dark night.

          Reply
          1. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            Yep and that happens… what? Every night?
            How often have you shot your way out of that situation?

            Reply
    2. Kurt CPI June 6, 2015

      Poorly written? It’s as clear as it could be. And to paraphrase a post in another discussion in this same forum last week, “The right to bear arms was never about duck hunting, it was and is about insuring the people’s power in the event government becomes oppressive”. Every one of the first ten amendments is about maintaining the people’s power.
      The reason “our form of government, freedoms, and our democracy are the exact opposite to tyranny” is precisely because of the constitution and, in large part, our bill of rights. But why stop with the second amendment? Let’s amend the constitution as follows:
      1) No criticizing presidents or politicians who’s views differ from our own. Peaceful assembly may not be for political reasons. All mention of religion (well, at least Christianity) will be restricted to churches and private homes. No printing or broadcasting of government-critical content, and after we jail Rupert Murdoch, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, Fox News will be shut down.
      2) Only the government’s military and para-military forces may bear arms. The right of the people to do so is rescinded
      3) Addendum: Offering aid and comfort to soldiers or veterans is prohibited
      4) Search warrants shall not be required if someone has accused a citizen of consorting with terrorist types.
      5) See # 6 below
      6) No more habeas corpus. People who are not charged may be detained indefinitely at the will of the government
      7) OK, you got me here, the $20 amount may need to include an inflationary clause.
      8) Addition: Bail may be denied if anyone in the judicial system doesn’t like you.
      9) Doesn’t matter since the rest have been gutted.
      10) Since this is never enforced anyway, let’s just delete it.

      Are these ridiculous? Of course! Every single restriction on our rights is ridiculous – including our right to bear arms. And if you’re planning to boycott every establishment where guns are permitted, you’ll be dining in most of the time.

      Reply
      1. dtgraham June 6, 2015

        How about the right to vote, or the right to a safe and legal abortion (Roe/Wade)? 57% of Republicans want to establish Christianity as the official national religion of the United States according to the Public Policy Polling survey. How about the, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” right? How about the right to free collective bargaining between employee and employer?

        Reply
        1. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

          You’re confusing legislation with the articles and amendments of the constitution. Laws are passed by the legislative branch. The judicial branch, when a law is contested, determines whether or not that law is constitutional. Most of things you listed are legislative. Things like abortion become “rights” as soon as they are legal. The difference is that those rights can be taken away (i.e. prohibition in 1918). But I can guarantee you that establishing Christianity as an official national religion is unconstitutional. The first ten amendments are fundamental rights, not subject to review except by the amendment process. They can’t be voted or legislated away.

          Reply
      2. Independent1 June 6, 2015

        What unadulerated HOGWASH!!! Your entire post is just one piece of BS after another!!

        For more than 200 years, every court in America understood that the 2nd Amendment APPLIED ONLY TO MILITIAS!!!

        See this excerpt from an article by ex SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens via an article in the Washington Post:

        Second Amendment, which provides that “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.”

        judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

        When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

        You really need to wise up and get the facts!!

        See more on this here:

        The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b124

        Reply
        1. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

          You’d be wrong on both of your assertions; that “federal judges uniformly understood that … it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes” or “it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms”. In fact it is clearly understood (quoting a very well-cited article) that “The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.” The only “interpretation” is by people who want to change it. Its statement couldn’t be any more clear. It grants the people, without mincing words, the right to form militias to protect themselves, and the right to bear arms. Nowhere does it say that only the government may form militias. Nowhere does it say that only government-formed militias may keep and bear arms. It says exactly the opposite, that the government may not infringe on the right of the people to defend themselves using arms. But you don’t have to take it from me, the Supreme court has ruled as much. And yes, that ruling absolutely, positively, legally gives me and you the right to own a gun and to carry it. (For the record I don’t own or carry a gun. I also don’t publish political articles, chair any political activist committees or have any intention of joining any unsanctioned militias, but I don’t intend to give up my rights to do any of those). As far as the “five words to fix the second amendment” article that you quoted, that is opinion, it is the opinion of one judge, and the ruling of the court is not consistent with that judge’s opinion. His logic is flawed and his opinion reflects his philosophy, and to me calls into question his ability to read the law without bias. In fact, the 5 words he would add would negate the second amendment exactly as I did in my post above – Mine is an unintentional paraphrase. Of course I was being satirical, Justice Stevens is serious. Like it or not, YOU have the right to keep and bear arms along with all of the other explicit items (but not limited to those) in those first ten amendments. And Yes, they are rights – that’s why they’re called the Bill of Rights, not the bill of wishy-washy guidelines.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            More total HOGWASH!!

            What Justice Stevens is proposing ISN’T THE OPINION OF ONE JUDGE!! IT WAS THE OPINION OF EVERY JUDGE IN THE NATION UNTIL THE NRA PAID OFF 5 NITWIT REPUBLICAN LEANING JUDGES 200 PLUS YEARS AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, TO BASTARDIZE THE MEANING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO SUIT ITS NEFARIOUS OBJECTIVES!!!

            BRING IN MORE NRA MEMBERS EVEN IF THAT MEANS THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS HAVE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!

            WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE IT IS THAT DURING THE WILD, WILD WEST, SHERIFFS COULD CONFISCATE EVERY GUN SLINGERS GUNS WHENEVER THEY ENTERED A TOWN OR TERRITORY THEY DIDN’T WANT GUNS IN???? BECAUSE THE 2ND AMENDMENT DID NOT GIVE ANY GUN SLINGER – THE RIGHT – TO CARRY A GUN WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HE OR SHE WANTED!!!!!!!!

            Reply
          2. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

            OK, let’s just look at the absolute ludicrousy of that assertion. Do you dispute that the first ten amendments were added to clearly spell out the rights of the people? Why then would a clause guaranteeing the rights of soldiers serving in the military to keep a gun be included in that group? Do we really need a contsitutional amendment that says “The right of a soldier in the military to carry a gun shall not be infringed”? How about one that says “The right of a member of the US Olympic Ski team to own and wear skis shall not be infringed”? They both make about as much sense – you can’t soldier without gun any more than you can ski without skis. It is and always has been a foregone conclusion that soldiers will be carrying weapons. The idea that the second amendment, a part of the bill of rights, was added to guarantee that soldiers won’t have their guns taken away is just ridiculous.

            I think we all know that Sheriffs in frontier cities did not permit guns, and probably had other “laws” that they created to address specific problems that weren’t on the state or federal books. That doesn’t make their actions constitutional, or even legal, anymore than getting away with stealing makes theft legal. You don’t like the second amendment. But you need to be honest about where it came from and to whom it applies. Religious people hate the Supreme court for upholding abortion. You hate the “5 NITWIT REPUBLICAN LEANING JUDGES” who sat on the bench when the 2nd amendment was ruled to apply to the people. But it does. It was always intended to. The second amendment grants the people the right to form militias for protection. And to make that clear, it adds “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” to clarify the point that the first part refers to armed militias. There’s no conceivable other reason for it to have been included in the bill of rights. If were meant for governmental military personnel it would have been in an article relating to that. Of course it isn’t, there isn’t any need to have an amendment that states the obvious.

            Reply
          3. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            And your idiotic rants continue. The 2nd amendment was not about ‘soldiers’, it was about every day citizens who doubled as soldiers if America was attacked. No colony had a standing army; neither did the federal government at the time. At the t ime, our country had to depend on every day citizens being willing to take up arms and fight for our country. That has long since past. States now have National Guards; under the guidance of the federal government and the government now has a large standing army. Therefore, the 2nd amendment – IS NO LONGER NECESSARY AND APPLIES TO NO ONE!!! There are no legitimate militias for it to apply too!!

            Go soak your head in the sand somewhere!!!!!!!!

            Reply
          4. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

            Why do keep insisting that it “applies to no one”, when in fact it applies to every law abiding citizen. It IS the law. Get over it. Burying YOUR head in the sand (and it is YOU that refuses to acknowledge the facts) and pretending it doesn’t apply won’t make it so.

            Reply
          5. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            Because IN REALITY IT APPLIES TO NO ONE. It applies to all Americans for the moment, but if a progressive can get elected and replace those 5 corrupt GOP biased judges, that will change quickly when HONEST JUDGES, rule correctly on the amendment!! American today IS LIVING A LIE!!!!!!

            Reply
          6. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

            Well, all I can say is read the text, maintain the context in which it appears in the constitution, put your ideology aside, and tell me what the sentence says. The verbiage is indisputable and even though you choose to believe it applies to no one, it does indeed apply to all qualifying citizens. ‘Till next time…

            Reply
          7. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            Wow!! Do you ever need a reading comprehension program which is typical of the majority of RWNJs such as yourself:

            “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.”

            The phrase – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Is clearly subordinate to “”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

            Madison clearly meant that — in order for states to maintain a well regulated militia, which was necessary to maintain the security of a free state, the right of NON-SOLDIER CITIZENS INVOLVED IN A MILITIA COULD NOT BE INFRINGED. BECAUSE SINCE STATES HAD NO STANDING ARMY, THEY NEEDED EVERY ABLE BODIED CITIZEN THEY COULD GET AHOLD OF TO CARRY A GUN.

            BUT IT’S ALL ABOUT MILITIAS!!!!!!!!!

            LEARN HOW TO READ AND COMPREHEND!!!!!!

            Reply
          8. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

            Mr nonsense has not a clue about American history.

            Reply
          9. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            Dumb troll speaks again!
            *queue surprise at actual english words*

            Reply
          10. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            Listen you willfully ignorant tool.
            Please bother to do a bare minimum of research before spouting your revisionist cr@p.
            First read this book ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-A-Biography/dp/147674744X )from a guy who knows more about the history of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment than you will ever know.

            Then read this quote From:
            http://www.armedwithreason.com/gun-control-and-the-evolving-second-amendment/

            “Between 1888 and 1960, every single law review article written on the Second Amendment rejected an individual rights interpretation. The 1934 National Firearms Act and subsequent Supreme Court Case US v. Miller were exemplars of this legal consensus. During the debate over the bill, the president of the NRA (National Rifle Association) explicitly stated that he had not given any thought over whether the bill violated the constitution and later wrote that the right to personal firearms could not be found in the Constitution. By the 1960s, the old militia system was long dead and the Second Amendment itself was an archaic relic irrelevant to modern society. This would quickly change.

            In 1977, the NRA underwent a massive upheaval (referred to as the Revolt in Cincinnati) as it tried to retreat further from national politics. Infuriated by the NRA’s timidity, the most extreme element of the NRA threw the old leadership out and installed firebrands from other gun activist organizations Whereas the old NRA had largely focused on hunting and didn’t overtly attempt to block gun regulation, the new regime was an entirely different animal. The right to bear arms became sacrosanct, and the interests of hunters became secondary.

            Around the same time of the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977, Second Amendment scholarship also underwent a dramatic shift. From 1970 to 1989, more than 27 law review articles were written supporting the individual rights interpretation, versus only 25 for the collective/civic view. More than half of these articles were written by a handful of lawyers employed by the NRA or various other pro-gun groups. This shift in legal scholarship and pro-gun lobbying coincided with an almost equally dramatic rise of conservative justices in federal courts. The stage was set for a legal showdown.”

            Get it yet?
            For 200 years from the time it was created, the second amendment HAD NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATE OUTSIDE OF MILITIAS.

            This is not opinion and is not in dispute, it is fact.

            The NRA and their pet lawyers have spent the last 30 year reinterpreting history, law and the constitution in order to sell more guns.

            This is also not opinion… it is fact.

            You may wish to believe differently, so you can argue your ignorant dangerous fetishism is Constitutionally justified.
            But it’s not.
            It never was.
            And you are a shill for the NRA, or an idiot, if you believe differently in the face of the facts.

            Reply
          11. Kurt CPI June 7, 2015

            First of all, I don’t believe the NRA sells guns, it supports the right of law abiding merchants and private owners to sell guns. Secondly, we can both cherry pick court decisions to make our points. What matters is the current Supreme Court ruling, which is that the second amendment applies to individuals. Period. It does not go so far as to say that no restrictions may be applied, but it does uphold that the States are subject to it, as it is our national creed – a fundamental part of the very foundation upon which our system is based. So that out of the way, if you want to argue that it’s obsolete, you can do that. But you can’t argue that it was never meant to apply to “The People” as a whole. The entire Bill of Rights is exactly what is its name says it is – a list of the people’s rights, before or after any legislative or judicial actions. If you want to permit the dismantling of your rights, it won’t stop with just one of the items on the list. The same basic arguments you make against firearm ownership can be made for virtually all of the other guaranteed items in the Bill of Rights. Religion is divisive so it should be banned. Freedom of the press leads to civil unrest so it should be banned. Freedom of speech leads to sedition, so it should be banned.

            Reply
          12. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            Of course the NRA doesn’t sell guns, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t get lots of big bucks from gun manufacturers for lying and misguidedly goading millions of Americans into buying a gun which only increases the probability that they, or someone in their household, will be killed by the gun they buy (or by an intruder that’s far better at using a gun than they are)!!!!!!!

            Reply
          13. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            You still don’t get it.
            You twits go on and on about “what the founders intended” and venerate the Constitution based on that same idea. If anyone tries to “go against the meaning of the Constitution” there are rallies and screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

            Yet when you’re faced with a complete 180 from “what the founders intended” after 200 years of confirmation that, yes, the second amendment being only for militias (as the actual words say) is exactly what the founders intended…. You argue that history doesn’t matter and the current ruling takes precedence… which is technically true…..But also not at all what the Constitution was about, or what the founders intended. You, sir, are cherry picking.

            I can indeed argue that it was never intended for an individual mandate because I am backed by facts, including the words of the Constitution, the quotes of the founders themselves, and 200 years of court opinions and decisions.
            That is not my opinion. Those are the actual facts of the case.

            The fact that the NRA has deliberately generated a complete reversal of “what the founders intended” and “what the Constitution intends” seems to not matter to you at all. A very weird occurance from those who cry every time someone doesn’t cleave to it’s exact intended meaning.

            Fact: For nearly all of US history the 2nd Amendment has had no individual application, unless as part of an organised militia.

            Fact: The NRA has deliberately and through a long term strategy, produced a groundswell of legal briefs and opinions, and judicial appointments to bring about a position where the Supreme Court rules exactly opposite to that.

            Fact: The NRA is an industry group funded by gun manufacturers and sellers. You are correct that they don’t sell guns. You fail to point out that they are well paid by people who want to ensure (for various, sometimes divergent, reasons) that guns are freely available to be purchased with as few restrictions as possible. I would normally post links to support this point, but if you look at any of their policies such as blocking registers, or fighting background checks for buying at a gun fair, it’s pretty obvious… if you can’t see this clearly then nothing I say will help you.

            Based on your own argument I can draw the following conclusion:
            If the Supreme Court one day rules opposite to their current stance, and finally returns to agreement with 200 years of legislative history… Obviously you’ll be totally fine with that, right?
            I mean you wouldn’t protest, or rant… because as you’ve said yourself… it’s the latest decision by the Supreme Court that is final. History doesn’t matter… the intentions of the founders don’t matter… the previous legal opinions don’t matter… it’s only the most recent ruling…. right?
            Yeah… right. I can imagine the frothing ranting already.

            Let’s wander through the rest of your reply in sections:
            – NRA selling guns: covered above. They are the lobbying arm of the gun industry.
            – I can’t say that it doesn’t apply to “the People”: I absolutely can, and have, and I’m backed by facts, history, 200 years of legal history, and the founders own intentions.
            – Most recent ruling is the only thing that matters: covered above.
            – Arguing it’s obsolete: No… actually the opposite. It’s entirely applicable. Not much of this part makes sense.
            – The “entire Bill of Rights”… Ummm… no idea what you’re trying to say here. I know what the Bill of Rights is. This doesn’t in any way support your argument and seems like meaningless filler.
            – “before or after any judicial and legislative actions” is either a technically truism or doesn’t make much sense. Your whole argument is that the recent Supreme court decision has changed 200 years of history on how the second amendment is applied. This would definitely be “after a judicial action”. As such this makes no sense.
            – “If you want to permit the dismantling of your rights”… this is the retardo wingnut slippery slope argument in all its idiot glory.
            Yes.. allow gay marriage and next it will be dogs marrying people.
            Yes… vote Obama into the Presidency and it will be the end of the world.
            Yes… Allow Obamacare and there will be death panels, and old people being marched to the gas showers….
            This type of argument paints you as a fool and intellectually challenged.
            I want the right not to be shot by one of you wingnuts freaking out at their own shadow… or by a criminal who has purchased a gun at a gun show… or by a paranoid schizophrenic having an episode. Returning the 2nd Amendment to ITS ORIGINAL AND INTENDED interpretation would increase MY rights at least a little bit, and reduce the possibility of this happening.
            – “The same basic arguments can apply to any right in the Bill of rights” yada yada yada… What is that same basic argument you are referring to? That the NRA has deliberately twisted the meaning of something that has been obvious and universally agreed for 200 years in order to serve their own financial ends? Really? That applies to all of the rights in the Bill of Rights?
            This is a straw man argument and fundamentally dishonest. You are misinterpreting my argument deliberately. My argument cannot be applied to any other right in the Bill of Rights, until some interest group spends 30 years deliberately degrading and altering it to serve their own ends.
            – “Freedom of the press leads to civil unrest”…
            “Religion is divisive”…
            These are just favored Republican scaremongering talking points. More Straw Men, this time with added hyperbole. I argued for none of these things. And none of the incidents we are discussing can remotely be applied to any of them, except in the fevered imaginations of your wingnut friends.

            Face it… you and the other gun nuts have a fetish for guns… which increase the odds that you will kill mostly yourselves, but also others. The NRA feeds this fetish… so you’re willing to ignore many of the core beliefs you hold dear about the Constitution and the Founders in order to keep playing with your replacement penii without restriction.

            You’re all willing to ignore facts and statistics on the results of gun ownership because Hollywood has stroked your egos into believing that if you hold one in your hands, you are not only safer, but can shoot like a sniper, only ever hit what you’re aiming at, react perfectly to every possible dangerous scenario, always correctly identify the “bad guy”, and never run into a group of other people with more and bigger guns than you.

            Ask a SWAT member, or someone military-trained, how likely any of those things are in real life from a civilian.
            i.e. Not in your imagination.

            That’s why I want the 2nd Amendment to be returned to what the Founders Intended and apply only to those in the military or militias.
            Not because that will automatically take away everyone’s guns… it won’t… you’ll still be allowed them based on licenses etc. But it will take away the delusion that owning one is a “basic right” irrespective of the rules. It’s not.

            Reply
          14. Kurt CPI June 8, 2015

            The pretense of your assertion, that there is a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right of militia members to own a gun is so preposterous as to be a joke. And yes, that is what you are stating – here’s a cut and paste from your post “the second amendment being only for militia”. Why in the name of reason would a constitutional clause, especially as an amendment, smack in the context of the Bill of Rights, be added to make sure the government doesn’t take guns away from its soldiers? Does that make ANY sense at all? OF COURSE soldiers will have guns. It’s just stupid to try to apply an amend, a clear part of the people’s rights declaration, to people who, by their very definition, will be using guns.

            Reply
          15. Insinnergy June 8, 2015

            Oh god.

            Firstly… You don’t seem to have actually read the second amendment. It has the words “a well regulated militia” in it. Somehow it’s completely preposterous that it’s about militia? What planet are you from?

            Secondly… Really? You don’t know the difference between the army and a citizen militia, historically speaking? Or why they may have wanted the guarantee that the government would not take the militia’s guns, in favor of the army keeping theirs?

            Thirdly… Its not me making this assertion, dimbulb. You keep trying to make this my opinion so you can pretend to argue against it…
            It’s not my opinion. It’s fact.
            As I have consistently said… it’s the founders, the last 200 years of legal interpretation of the Constitution, the last 200 years of Supreme court interpretations, and the actual text.

            I notice you also avoided all the points I made in the last post that you have no hope of answering, for yet another strawman argument…
            “How could you possibly believe in [insert weird hyperbolic and completely wrong assertion about not possibly being about militia… how preposterous!!]… That doesn’t make any sense because of [irrelevant obvious facts]!!!! harumph harumph!”

            I’m over attempting to educate someone who is not making the barest effort to educate themselves.

            Even simply reading the links I supplied previously relating to scholars who have researched the history of the second amendment would have negated your last answer, if you’d bothered.

            Your willful ignorance is showing for all to see.
            You have not got a single argumentative leg to stand on.
            And I’m done.

            Reply
          16. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            I think we’re wasting our time trying to reason with a totally brainwashed GOP/NRA sheeple who not matter how much proof we come up with will refuse to admit that the SCOTUS in 2008 bastardized the meaning, and total intent of the 2nd Amendment, probably via a payoff from the NRA/Big GOP donors like Sheldon Adelson/the Koch Bros.

            Several members of the SCOTUS made no secret of their allegiance to Adelson by trooping over to Las Vegas and letting him wine and dine them at his gambling establishment in 2014. It was absolutely disgusting.

            Reply
          17. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

            I see Mr nonsense is shouting and frothing st the mouth again.

            Reply
          18. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            Your idiocy is showing….

            Reply
          19. pisces63 June 8, 2015

            They do not understand. Even I know this. Dodge City was one o the worse but the Earps and other sheriffs kept and believed in gun control because they knew how out of control certain people could be after a few drinks. They need to watch a good western and learn something.

            Reply
          20. hicusdicus June 11, 2015

            You must get your information on the wild west from Gene Autry and Gaby Hayes or maybe Roy Rogers.

            Reply
          21. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            And if you don’t believe sheriffs confiscated guns in the wild, wild west, read this from the Huffington Post:

            After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, “Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets?” This is a common refrain heard in the gun debate. Gun control advocates fear — and gun rights proponents sometimes hope — the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge.

            Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns — places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge — actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

            In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

            Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”

            A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

            Reply
          22. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

            Huffington post the nonsense news paper or what ever they call themselves.

            Reply
          23. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            In the minds of mental incompetents such as yourself maybe!!!

            Reply
          24. hicusdicus June 8, 2015

            Why do you constantly post these long comments That go on and on about how bad non liberals are? What is the point in it?

            The stuff you say is mostly fabricated and most people know it. Is there something you are trying to accomplish? You really are coming off as rather looney. Look at the post below its completely hysterical. Did something happen to you, to set you off like this? I already know that your comment back if there is one will be a rant and blame me for world hunger.

            Reply
          25. Independent1 June 8, 2015

            Nothing I post is ‘fabricated’ lowlife. And you know it. Only to you RWNJs who refuse to believe the truth and can do nothing but try to discredit it – the truth. I post supporting articles and documentation with virtually everything I post – unlike you ignorant lowlifes who all you can do is post your regurgitated misguided personal opinions and lies from Faux News and one lying RWNJ website after another.

            And why do I do it? Because I’m fed up with the GOP getting away with governing in a way that actually kills people prematurely. I’ve done enough research to show that people living in red states, not only live far shorter lives than people in blue states, but also they’re the most miserable people in America (all 10 of the states identified as ‘most miserable, by 24/7 Wall Street, are red states). And that’s because the GOP governs in a way that provides people in red states with the worst healthcare in the nation and forces high percentages of their populations to live in poverty where they have to scrimp just to feed themselves and therefore don’t get the right nutrition to live longer, normal lives.

            And I’m going to keep ranting until enough Americans wake up to vote these nothing but gangsters out of office and replace them with politicians who care about people, and not their own pocketbooks and feeding money to the already wealthy!!!!!

            Reply
          26. hicusdicus June 11, 2015

            That’s the biggest fabrication yet. If you keep this up you will need to carry around a fire extinguisher..

            Reply
          27. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

            It is pointless to try and debate with the king of nonsense.

            Reply
        2. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

          The king of nonsense is passing judgment on something he knows nothing about.

          Reply
          1. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

            Is that a child whining in the background?
            Or just a troll with nothing useful to say?

            Reply
          2. Independent1 June 7, 2015

            From what I understand, a rich fart with nothing better to do than make a fool of himself.

            Reply
      3. Dominick Vila June 7, 2015

        The right to bear arms was extended at a time when our country did not yet have the armed forces needed to repel a British or any other European attack. Under such circumstances we relied on a well armed and disciplined militia to defend the homeland.
        The syntax used in the Second Amendment can, and is, interpret as two separate issues: (1) the need for a disciplined militia, and (2) the right for all Americans to bear arms regardless of whether or not there is a real threat against our country or our democracy.
        I don’t have a problem with gun ownership. I have a problem with the frequent displays of bravado by vigilantes, the need for semi-automatic weapons to, allegedly, defend ourselves, and the need for high capacity magazines. I also have a problem with gun laws that allow mentally disturbed people to buy guns. A simple background check, including access to psychiatric records, could prevent many of the homicides we have almost on a daily basis.

        Reply
    3. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

      Its a tossup between you and the king of nonsense who will snatch the crown.

      Reply
      1. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

        Shhh now. Your opinions (such as they are) are sad… and pointless.
        Try sleeping instead.

        Reply
  5. ps0rjl June 6, 2015

    The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was a frontier and the only protection the settlers had from bands of Indians or other marauders was the citizen soldier/militia. It is time revisited this amendment and made it fit a modern society. Many of these gun enthusiasts have never been in a situation where they actually had to shoot at someone. It’s not that easy. I know as I am marine and a Vietnam veteran.

    Reply
    1. Independent1 June 6, 2015

      If interpreted correctly, the 2nd Amendment applies to NO AMERICAN TODAY, as militias are not a recognized form of army any more and the 2nd Amendment ONLY APPLIES TO MILITIAS. It was interpreted that way by courts across the country from the time of its ratification until the right-wing biased SCOTUS bastardized it by saying it also applies to non-militia Americans in a clearly corrupt 2008 decision.

      The 2nd Amendment doesn’t need to be revisited, Americans just need to realize that the Constitution gives no American TODAY ‘the right’ to carry a gun. Carrying a gun should be considered a privilege just like owning a car, and governments across America should be able to control their ownership just like they control the ownership and use of a car. Americans buying a gun should be registered, and they should have to pass specific tests in order to own one – like being mentally competent and free from a criminal background.

      Reply
      1. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

        More nonsense from Mr nonsense.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 June 7, 2015

          From Justice John Paul Stevens:

          For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

          When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

          Reply
          1. pisces63 June 8, 2015

            YOu always make my day. I learn so much. Thank you. this is good to know. What gun proponents really cannot understand is ‘we the people’ can change all this with a petition, ballot and ratification of a amendment. THEN,what would they do?

            Reply
        2. Independent1 June 7, 2015

          Evidence from the 1800s that the 2nd Amendment gives NO ONE ‘ THE RIGHT’ TO CARRY A GUN WHENEVER AND WHEREVER THEY WANT!!!!!!!!

          After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, “Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets?” This is a common refrain heard in the gun debate. Gun control advocates fear — and gun rights proponents sometimes hope — the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge.

          Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns — places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge — actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

          In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

          Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”

          A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

          Reply
      2. FireBaron June 9, 2015

        I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment applying to individual gun ownership. As Justice Scalia has often pointed out, the Constitution should be interpreted in the language as it meant at the time of adoption. Therefore, as the 2nd Amendment came out the same time as the Constitution, then everyone should have the right to bear a single-shot, muzzle-loading flintlock rifle, pistol and fouling piece (now known as a shotgun), as they were the only firearms known to the Framers

        Reply
        1. Independent1 June 9, 2015

          But writing the 2nd Amendment to give every American ‘the right’ to pack whatever gun they wanted and for whatever reason they wanted to use it, was not what Madison intended when he wrote the 2nd Amendment. He made that very clear in a number of the Federalist papers. Madison’s express purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the states (colonies at the time) maintained militas that could be called up at a moments notice, to protect America from foreign aggression and so state residents could also protect themselves from attacks by Indians.

          Madison had no envisionment that the 2nd Amendment would ever be interpreted in a way that would give Americans the misguided notion that they would ever believe that the 2nd Amendment would give them ‘A RIGHT’ to own a gun for other than militia activities, just so they could use it to entertain themselves at shooting ranges and/or use them to go out and commit mass murder.

          Reply
  6. swift2010 June 6, 2015

    students are under a lot of pressure so the chances are they will on the spur of the moment commit suicide or kill someone for a minor arguement

    countries where there are a lot of guns tend to be more divided like Libya than more democratic

    Reply
  7. dtgraham June 6, 2015

    I can only imagine that those Utah and Texas schools are going to have a lot of straight A students after this legislation.

    Reply
  8. Daniel Jones June 6, 2015

    Wayne LaPierre is laughing at Texans from atop the clock tower.

    Reply
    1. ps0rjl June 6, 2015

      For all LaPierre’s posturing about the right of individuals to own any type of weapon and carry it in public, the man is a hypocrite. When he was a young man during Vietnam, he made sure he hung on to that 2S student deferment until the draft ended. When I was in the marines there was no term of Chickenhawk. We just referred to people like him as John Waynes because they were long on talk and short on walk.

      Reply
  9. manderso June 6, 2015

    Texas men have a very small penis, they must make this up somehow.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

      Sounds to me like you are the one with penis problems.

      Reply
  10. Independent1 June 6, 2015

    “The illogic is hard to overstate. This is what one proponent of the measure, GOP state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, had to say: “An armed society is a safe society, so any time you have gun control, there is far more opportunity to become victims.””

    Wow!! When are gun lovers ever going to wake up to the fact that guns bring not only gun accidents, but gun related homicides and gun assisted suicides.

    Do any of these nitwit legislators ever look up the facts? The fact that it’s the red states with the highest percentage of gun ownership that lead the nation BY FAR in gun related homicides, accidental gun deaths and suicides by gun. And that over 80% of the people killed by a gun are either a gun owner, live in a home where a gun is owned, or die while visiting someone who owns a gun???

    And that studies have shown that people who possess a gun during a robbery, home breakin or other altercation like a road rage, are 4.46 times more likely to be shot and killed than if they didn’t have a gun in their possession??

    When is the stupidity about guns going to end?? They are by far a greater liability, chance of getting one killed, than they’ll ever be a means of self-protection. Between 2000 and 2011 there were over 165,000 gun related homicides in America, and during that time, there were only 1,300 homicides that were justified because someone killed someone else in self-protection (other than uniform police officers). Does everyone here realize that means that with 165,000 homicides and only 1,300 justified for self-defense, that less than 1% of the killings in those years were done in self-defense???? How ridiculous can you get. And how much more evidence does anyone need to realize that the NRA is lying and lying to Americans about how effective guns are for self-defense?????

    Fact is, unless you’re an expert at using that gun, owning a gun is nothing more than a direct effort to get yourself killed; or someone in your household killed or even a friend!!!!!!

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus June 7, 2015

      More nonsense

      from the king of nonsense.

      Reply
      1. Independent1 June 7, 2015

        And you’re also a denier of climate change, aren’t you!! Just can’t accept reality!!

        Reply
      2. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

        Shhh… adults are speaking.

        Reply
    2. Insinnergy June 7, 2015

      I think you can be sure that the GOP politicians understand more guns = more violence and death from the extreme measures they go to to ensure that no-one can study gun deaths through NIH (they specifically added legislation to block any studies being done), and to ensure that accurate records of ownership and shooting incident are not kept.

      You don’t go to all that trouble unless you’re pretty sure that the stats won’t come out in your favor…. Which makes them evil ideologues… which is probably worse than just plain stupid.

      Reply
  11. Stuart June 7, 2015

    Syria: the NRA paradise.

    Reply
  12. Jeff Wolf June 7, 2015

    Dear Ms. Tucker,
    Although I do not favor guns being allowed on university campuses under any circumstances, you fail to specify that the law passed by the Texas Legislature applies only to public universities, not to private ones, and that the presidents of public universities are allowed to designate gun-free zones on campus at their discretion.

    Reply
  13. FireBaron June 8, 2015

    I live in a state that has open carry laws. You want to see people go into a panic with 911 calls? Walk into a 7-11 or Subway with a holster on your belt. Even if the open carry is legal, these folks can still get charged with creating a public disturbance. Granted, the judge will throw the charge out the window with last night’s chamber pot, but it is still an inconvenience as not only must the person exercising his rights be there in court, but so must the police officer, especially if they want to make the charge stick.

    That being said, there must be something in the water down in Texas. Like that father who carried a loaded AK-47 with 100-round magazines into DFW to see his daughter off on a flight. His reasoning when asked by a deputy sheriff on duty? He was worried about terrorists, AND it was legal for him to do so, provided he did not try to get through the security port.

    Reply
    1. DEFENDER88 June 8, 2015

      The general consensus in the Responsible Gun Community is that “Open Carry” “in public” is unwise (ok dumb to stupid) on several levels.

      1 – It scares people

      2 – It gives away your Tactical Advantage of being Concealed

      3 – It makes Responsible carriers look bad

      4 – More

      The only time you will see my gun is if you come at me and threaten me.

      Which “has” happened, more than once.

      If not for my gun, I would be dead long ago.

      Case 1:

      Fortunately, when I drew my gun, pointed at the leader and told them to stop or I would shoot, they stopped and retreated.

      Like the coward drunk bastards they were. Even though all 5 had rifles.

      Fortunately, they were just sober enough to tell I knew what I was doing and was not there to play their game.

      And perfectly willing to die for what was behind me.

      ps1 I was protecting several women and children behind me.

      ps2 Not the only time I have been shot at for no reason.

      Reply
      1. FireBaron June 9, 2015

        The one time I had to do something similar to your Case #1, I calmly said to them that one of them was probably going to kill me, so which two of them wanted to die first. It’s amazing how fast they backed off when they realized their mortality was staring down at them from a Colt 1911A. Something about that barrel size looking more like a .90 caliber when you are staring at the business end of things!

        Reply
        1. DEFENDER88 June 9, 2015

          Sometimes I think these Anti-gun nuts(like some in here) the ones who say (no guns period & no one needs a gun for self defense) have never been out in the real world.
          As you and I know it anyway.

          Typically if you can manipulate and shoot a 1911 well – It Smacks of x-military or competition shooter?
          Especially if you let your life depend on it.
          A “noob” is not going to do well with a 1911.

          ps I am retired but volunteer teach Police shooting, and others.
          And State Certified CCW Instr, Certified Self Defense Instr., Range Officer and shoot comptetion IDPA(Intl Defensive Pistol Assoc)(ie Combat Pistol) and 3Gun.

          The way I saw it – The drunk red-necks with rifles had me surrounded – Poor Bastards:)

          Reply
  14. 13observer June 8, 2015

    It clearly shows that all the “hocus pocus” polls constructed for affirmative outcomes desired by the builder but do not reflect true numbers. You will notice this with several issues progressives are pushing like gun control, illegal immigration and global warming.

    Reply
  15. Carolyn1520 June 8, 2015

    Ignorant and uneducated people are fearful people.

    Reply
  16. Mikey7a June 8, 2015

    I came to read this article, and to add my voice to those who think Texas has gone totally mad. I still want to go on record, I’m against anyone on Campus having guns, except for qualified Law Enforcement Officers. Having said that, am I crazy, or did I see an AD in the middle of this article, offering a Free NRA Duffel Bag for a $25 Membership? WTH NM WTH??

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.