• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

I prefer liberty, even if there are some associated risks, to restrictive paternalism... at least where fundamental rights are involved.
 
Ikari said:
Of course you don't see it as a rights violation because you don't wish to see it as such. The individual has right to keep and bear arms, that right is not to be infringed upon. When you restrict where one can carry a gun, you infringe upon that right. Some of it can be seen as reasonable such as private property where the property owner doesn't want guns on it. However, for public land such as a public University, it's different. By preventing someone from bearing arms, you infringe upon that right to bear arms. If you wish to do so, you must have a valid reason. Yes, if there were more schools allowed concealed carry, we could have better aggregated statistics. However, what my example proves is the break down of your argument. You're saying that if we allow these adults (not kids) to exercise their rights, that there will be a significant increase in our safety concerns. But that's not the case in CO at all. We have had no school shootings on campuses which allow guns. Even though there are bars and even though guns can be brought onto campus. Heck, Fort Collins itself is open carry and people are allowed to carry in businesses and bars (you cannot drink if you're carrying though). We're not a high crime rate city, there's not a lot of shootings. Young people behind the wheel still present the largest probability of death to me.

And while rights can be restricted, sometimes even justly, it requires evidence and proof. Of which you have none. Nothing is not sufficient argument for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...

As I've often said, I have no emotional attach to any tool, including a weapon. Evidence is more than just a study about something that you can't study yet. You can make reasonable predictions based other examples of the population and how they handle other adult responsibilities. If you can show that they make major mistakes and act immaturely with other adult repsonsibilities, and I that has been shown, you can make reasonable assumptions.

Add to the fact there is no reason for a gun in the classroom. It's not that guns in and of them self are bad or a problem, buit that they are a risk that simply has no reason for being. There is no good reason to have a gun in the classroom. And I tell you, many school administrators simply won't want to take that risk. And it has been shown that they present just that argument, as does at least one police chief (if we look we might find more).

Jerry, as for average age, averages are effected by many factors. Meaning, that one school may be heavy with adult learners and another less so. A few 50 year old students ups the average. Most students are of traditional age, meaning younger. It also isn't that students all of the sudden mature at 21. In fact, I believe that there are brain studies that suggest the brian isn't fully developed until your mid to late twenties:

On the contrary, the adolescent brain undergoes a dramatic transformation between the ages of about 10 and the mid-twenties, rivaled only by the changes that occur in early childhood.

Adolescent Brain | AEA 267 R4

For the teen, however, the PFC is undeveloped, and the emotional brain (including the amygdala mentioned above) rules the moment, until the PFC is developed in the mid-twenties. The teen thinks: "This is going to be exciting!"-if he thinks at all. Auto insurance companies figured this one out long ago.

The Teenager's Brain | Psychology Today

Also, I neither believe guns on campus will cause or prevent a Columbine or VT. I buy neither guns will save us or destory us. It is merely a tool. Nothing more.
 
Why do you need a special law to enforce a constitutional right? According to the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, the new meaning of the second amendment should allow guns on any public school campus.

It's a fundamental right.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I prefer liberty, even if there are some associated risks, to restrictive paternalism... at least where fundamental rights are involved.
Click to expand...

They're not mutually exclusive.

At any rate, I fundamentally don't understand the American belief that liberty is worth more than life. Life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness, as your own motto says. Life should trump all.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Why do you need a special law to enforce a constitutional right? According to the new Supreme Court rulings, the new meaning of the second amendment should allow guns on any public school campus.

It's a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is exactly what the ruling means. And it also has changed more than a few times over the decades.
 
SE102 said:
I can't drink at 18, why should I have a gun. :)
Click to expand...

Same reason you can vote and exercise free speech. It's in the Constitution.

Maybe drinking should be a fundamental right, too, but it ain't in there.
 
Le Marteau said:
They're not mutually exclusive.

At any rate, I fundamentally don't understand the American belief that liberty is worth more than life. Life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness, as your own motto says. Life should trump all.
Click to expand...

Many seem to have never seen Malow's hieracy of needs. :coffeepap
 
Guy Incognito said:
Same reason you can vote and exercise free speech. It's in the Constitution.

Maybe drinking should be a fundamental right, too, but it ain't in there.
Click to expand...

If I drink in protest to the law is that not free speech?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Why do you need a special law to enforce a constitutional right? According to the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, the new meaning of the second amendment should allow guns on any public school campus.

It's a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Because the Constitution isn't infallible. The Constitution, while at times marvellously innovative, should not be help up as some perfect Word of God, from which all law must stem. It is important, yet also an old and outdated document. Many of its concepts still hold water, but many others don't. The right to bear arms was a fundamentally different subject in the Age of Empires than in our Post-Modern era. Where the frontiersmen of North America found it necessary to live the life of the pioneer and defend their own, all the free gun laws in the States today do is get 11,000 Americans killed in criminal activity each year.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think that is exactly what the ruling means. And it also has changed more than a few times over the decades.
Click to expand...

Actually, Heller and McDonald are the first SCOTUS rulings on the meaning of the second amendment ever. So it hasn't really changed at all, it's more like the quantum observer effect, where the Second Amendment existed in a suspended state as both a collective right and an individual one until the SCOTUS finally decided.

But you're right that we still have a few years before we find out exactly what they mean in practice. Just because the Supreme Court decided something does not mean they will apply it consistently. In fact, based on the past behavior of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, we should fully expect them not to be self-consistent.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Actually, Heller and McDonald are the first SCOTUS rulings on the meaning of the second amendment ever. So it hasn't really changed at all, it's more like the quantum observer effect, where the Second Amendment existed in a suspended state as both a collective right and an individual one until the SCOTUS finally decided.

But you're right that we still have a few years before we find out exactly what they mean in practice. Just because the Supreme Court decided something does not mean they will apply it consistently. In fact, based on the past behavior of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, we should fully expect them not to be self-consistent.
Click to expand...

More that some may read what was done differently than others do. That's the trouble with laws and language, everyone THINKS they know exactly what it says, and what the rulings really were. Often many get it wrong.
 
Let me add this:

The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

(snip)

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
 
Boo Radley said:
Let me add this:

The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

(snip)

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Click to expand...

You act like that's not a big deal. The second amendment is now a fundamental right, like freedom of speech or religion. Think about the implications of that. You can't even deny a convict in prison his fundamental right to practice his religion, without a compelling reason.

So you have to give me a compelling reason now to deny me my guns in a public place. Not just a good reason. A legally compelling one. Like it or not, Heller was huge. I don't understand why you're downplaying it.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You act like that's not a big deal. The second amendment is now a fundamental right, like freedom of speech or religion. Think about the implications of that. You can't even deny a convict in prison his fundamental right to practice his religion, without a compelling reason.

So you have to give me a compelling reason now to deny me my guns in a public place. Not just a good reason. A legally compelling one. Like it or not, Heller was huge. I don't understand why you're downplaying it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a major deal, but part of the continued controvesy with the admendment. As long as I can remember both sides have taken rulings to be major and definitavie, but in the end, they weren't. The next ruling will likely back this one up a bit.

And I'm telling you, believe it or not, it will only take one accident in a school to push these rights back. Just one.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think it is a major deal, but part of the continued controvesy with the admendment. As long as I can remember both sides have taken rulings to be major and definitavie, but in the end, they weren't. The next ruling will likely back this one up a bit.
Click to expand...

You might be right about that next ruling. Hopefully we will have a new court roster with at least one or two left leaning (or, God forbid, non-partisan) Justices by then. Scalia and Thomas are about ready to retire, I should say, but something tells me they are much too stubborn to do so while Obama is in office.

Boo Radley said:
And I'm telling you, believe it or not, it will only take one accident in a school to push these rights back. Just one.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the gun culture in this country.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You might be right about that next ruling. Hopefully we will have a new court roster with at least one or two left leaning (or, God forbid, non-partisan) Justices by then. Scalia and Thomas are about ready to retire, I should say, but something tells me they are much too stubborn to do so while Obama is in office.



I think you underestimate the gun culture in this country.
Click to expand...

No. I don't think I do. While we will never ban guns in this country (nor would I advocate that we do), Mothers can rally real well. It will only take one accident. College administrators know this, which in part is why most are opposed.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I don't think I do. While we will never ban guns in this country (nor would I advocate that we do), Mothers can rally real well. It will only take one accident. College administrators know this, which in part is why most are opposed.
Click to expand...

But that's just it. Gun accidents happen all the time, and they haven't put a halt to the advancement of gun rights yet. You may not realize it, but mothers are part of the gun culture as well. It is a pervasive part of the USA.

Gun accidents and gun violence are a tremendous public health concern, yet somehow they don't seem to hinder the gun culture. Your theory that it will "only take one" to undo gun rights just doesn't hold up.

When it comes to something as big as Heller, there is no going back. As big a ruling as Heller was it would take an utter sea change in public opinion to undo it.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
But that's just it. Gun accidents happen all the time, and they haven't put a halt to the advancement of gun rights yet. You may not realize it, but mothers are part of the gun culture as well. It is a pervasive part of the USA.

Gun accidents and gun violence are a tremendous public health concern, yet somehow they don't see to hinder the gun culture.. Your theory that it will "only take one" to undo gun rights just doesn't hold up.

When it comes to something as big as Heller, there is no going back. As big a ruling as Heller was it would take an utter sea change in public opinion to undo it.
Click to expand...

I think I realize things fairly well, but mothers and the gun movement are more rual than urban. So, I largely think they are smaller. And while accidents happen, they don't happen at school. I believe that difference will mean something. It won't make any major change in guns law, but will remove them from schools, where they don't belong to begin with.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I've often said, I have no emotional attach to any tool, including a weapon. Evidence is more than just a study about something that you can't study yet. You can make reasonable predictions based other examples of the population and how they handle other adult responsibilities. If you can show that they make major mistakes and act immaturely with other adult repsonsibilities, and I that has been shown, you can make reasonable assumptions.
Click to expand...

But you haven't shown anything. I, on the other had provided REAL WORLD DATA on the scenario where it says you are not at any greater risk. Since these are ADULTS we are talking about, not children, and you have no evidence and the only evidence which exists is contrary to your point; the rights of the individual should win out. You hold no logical and defendable argument on this point.

Boo Radley said:
Add to the fact there is no reason for a gun in the classroom. It's not that guns in and of them self are bad or a problem, buit that they are a risk that simply has no reason for being. There is no good reason to have a gun in the classroom. And I tell you, many school administrators simply won't want to take that risk. And it has been shown that they present just that argument, as does at least one police chief (if we look we might find more).
Click to expand...

But the fact you cite is nothing more than your assumption. You assume there is no reason for having them. You show no data along those lines, You cite other people who have made similar assumptions, but where's the proof? If you want to talk elementary, jr. high, or even high school; then ok I can see the ability to put in those restrictions (though we were allowed to bring guns to school property in high school where I was from, and there was never an issue with it). But those are kids. This is college, where the average age is in the low 20's. These are ADULTS we're talking about. You may want to again ASSUME that they cannot handle the responsibility if they choose to exercise their rights. But these are all assumptions, you've shown nothing more.

We are dealing with adults, not kids. Adults have all their rights recognized. The only way to justly use government force against the rights and liberties of another is through the court system. They have to do something wrong, get caught doing something wrong, the State needs to make their case before a jury of the defendant's peers, that jury needs to reach a guilty verdict. You cannot restrict the exercise of rights to adults just because you fear they will act inappropriately. They actually have to act inappropriately first. You have no aggregated statistics, you have no defendable argument.

Boo Radley said:
Jerry, as for average age, averages are effected by many factors. Meaning, that one school may be heavy with adult learners and another less so. A few 50 year old students ups the average. Most students are of traditional age, meaning younger. It also isn't that students all of the sudden mature at 21. In fact, I believe that there are brain studies that suggest the brian isn't fully developed until your mid to late twenties:

On the contrary, the adolescent brain undergoes a dramatic transformation between the ages of about 10 and the mid-twenties, rivaled only by the changes that occur in early childhood.

Adolescent Brain | AEA 267 R4

For the teen, however, the PFC is undeveloped, and the emotional brain (including the amygdala mentioned above) rules the moment, until the PFC is developed in the mid-twenties. The teen thinks: "This is going to be exciting!"-if he thinks at all. Auto insurance companies figured this one out long ago.

The Teenager's Brain | Psychology Today
Click to expand...

We're not talking about adolescent of teenagers; we're talking about adults

Boo Radley said:
Also, I neither believe guns on campus will cause or prevent a Columbine or VT. I buy neither guns will save us or destory us. It is merely a tool. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Allowing guns on campus most likely would not prevent mass shootings. Those are done by crazy people and it's always been difficult to predict crazy people. However, it will also not cause these sorts of shootings. In short, your probability for death will be mostly unaltered by allowing guns on campus. That being the case, that actually allowing guns on campus will have little to no effect (as you've admitted here) on your overall probabilities, there is then no just reason by which you can employ government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Ikari said:
But you haven't shown anything. I, on the other had provided REAL WORLD DATA on the scenario where it says you are not at any greater risk. Since these are ADULTS we are talking about, not children, and you have no evidence and the only evidence which exists is contrary to your point; the rights of the individual should win out. You hold no logical and defendable argument on this point.
Click to expand...

We may disagree on that. I think I have shown that with like responsibilities, young people have not been responsible. And that accidents with firearms are common.

As for your stats, they seem to speak to something other than what I'm speaking to. I have made no claim concerning shooting each other or criminal activitity.

But the fact you cite is nothing more than your assumption. You assume there is no reason for having them. You show no data along those lines, You cite other people who have made similar assumptions, but where's the proof? If you want to talk elementary, jr. high, or even high school; then ok I can see the ability to put in those restrictions (though we were allowed to bring guns to school property in high school where I was from, and there was never an issue with it). But those are kids. This is college, where the average age is in the low 20's. These are ADULTS we're talking about. You may want to again ASSUME that they cannot handle the responsibility if they choose to exercise their rights. But these are all assumptions, you've shown nothing more.

We are dealing with adults, not kids. Adults have all their rights recognized. The only way to justly use government force against the rights and liberties of another is through the court system. They have to do something wrong, get caught doing something wrong, the State needs to make their case before a jury of the defendant's peers, that jury needs to reach a guilty verdict. You cannot restrict the exercise of rights to adults just because you fear they will act inappropriately. They actually have to act inappropriately first. You have no aggregated statistics, you have no defendable argument.
Click to expand...

Assumption based on information concerning maturity level and documented cases of young people being irresponsible with their adult responsibilities. They have the right to be stupid, and are regularly, which is why insurance companies tend to charge them more.

We're talking about young adults, not mature adults, who do in fact make serious mistakes and often fail in their responsibilities.

We're not talking about adolescent of teenagers; we're talking about adults
Click to expand...

We're talkng about 21 year olds, which are not in their mid to late twenties. It's just asking for trouble.




Allowing guns on campus most likely would not prevent mass shootings. Those are done by crazy people and it's always been difficult to predict crazy people. However, it will also not cause these sorts of shootings. In short, your probability for death will be mostly unaltered by allowing guns on campus. That being the case, that actually allowing guns on campus will have little to no effect (as you've admitted here) on your overall probabilities, there is then no just reason by which you can employ government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...

Nor have I argued it is the cause. Not one line has ever argued it was the cause or that there would be more such shootings. The risk would be for accidental shootings, which would affect stats minimally at best. But, it would be a needless risk. There is no place or need for guns in the classroom. Few if any administartors or teachers want this, and liability issues would be foremost on their minds. And I bet my last dollar that one cccident will bring the weight of parents down on this issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
We may disagree on that. I think I have shown that with like responsibilities, young people have not been responsible. And that accidents with firearms are common.

As for your stats, they seem to speak to something other than what I'm speaking to. I have made no claim concerning shooting each other or criminal activitity.

Assumption based on information concerning maturity level and documented cases of young people being irresponsible with their adult responsibilities. They have the right to be stupid, and are regularly, which is why insurance companies tend to charge them more.

We're talking about young adults, not mature adults, who do in fact make serious mistakes and often fail in their responsibilities.

We're talkng about 21 year olds, which are not in their mid to late twenties. It's just asking for trouble.

Nor have I argued it is the cause. Not one line has ever argued it was the cause or that there would be more such shootings. The risk would be for accidental shootings, which would affect stats minimally at best. But, it would be a needless risk. There is no place or need for guns in the classroom. Few if any administartors or teachers want this, and liability issues would be foremost on their minds. And I bet my last dollar that one cccident will bring the weight of parents down on this issue.
Click to expand...

Again, you're making an argument against gun-ownership per-se, not against carrying on campus specifically.

What you're doing occurs every time we bring up this topic. Those who oppose guns on campus are topically those who oppose gun ownership in general.
 
It doesn't matter. Just because you want to keep making these little deviations so that you can try to explain why you can use government force against people doesn't mean that you're talking about something relevant. Young adult, old adult, middle aged adult; it doesn't matter. They are ADULTS. That's what matters. At 18, regardless of what you believe about brain chemistry, all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of a person are recognized. Asking for "trouble" or not, it's all aside. Your personal feelings about maturity are not to actually influence the rights and liberties of others.

Everything you have said is essentially this "I don't think there should be guns on campus, therefore all adults should have their rights infringed upon and prevented from having guns because I think it would be better this way."

If you think that makes a coherent and valid argument, you're fooling yourself. You cannot infringe upon the rights of others just because you feel like it. Not justly. Your feelings are not proper argument against the rights of others. That's the bottom line. You can feel any way you want, but just because you feel something doesn't give you the just power to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. You have to have PROOF. For the love of all that is holy, can you not understand that point? You have no proof, only assumption, supposition, and feelings. You have a few administrators who don't want it, but it's all based on the same flawed logic. Without data you cannot do what you want to do because what you want is an act of government force and coercion against the individual. For that to be done, you need evidence, you need proof, you need something more than some dumbass assumption that "there is no place or need for guns in the classroom" (which is again YOUR ASSUMPTION and not proper argument).

The rights and liberties of all adults are fully recognized. That's it. I have SHOWN you that in places where this is legal, there has been no problem with it. You have shown nothing but assumption, supposition, and feeling. No proof, no numbers, no logical and rational argument. You feel they are immature, you feel that it would be dangerous (even though no probabilities are actually affected). That's all you have, and none of it makes for proper argument for government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

And that's the bottom line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom