• 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 Senate approves guns in college classrooms

where the scum in the VPC fail is how they frame the issue

they assume that the only beneficial use of a gun is "shooting" a criminal" and they compare accidental shootings with shooting criminals. they also count a battered wife shooting an assaulting spouse as "someone close to you" but the fact remains. the vast majority of useful instances of a gun saving some one does NOT INVOLVE shooting the criminal

If someone breaks into my house and I detain him at gun point or even scare him off the gun has protected me but the VPC asswipes don't count that. In the VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, a deterrence is not reported by the police as a "gun incident


the fact is almost every retired cop, DA and Judge owns a gun ought to tell you something

One, that isn't the issue in question. In question was who statisitically is more likely to be shot. More often, in actual shootings, we shoot ourselves.

Second, we have no real way to know about prevented crimes. A number, how big or small is debatable, are prevent by people without guns. But any study that can be seen as facutal would require more than just asking gun owners. I'm quite sure my dogs discourage crime, but any thing I say would be subject to question and not something that can be seen as statistical proof.
 
Spoken like someone who has no experience with guns.

To the contrary

Again, your tendency toward hyperbole is impressive. Yes, guns have the ability to cause serious or even fatal injury, but to say there is no such thing as a minor incident is pants-on head retarded.

Letting any one who wants to carry a gun be responsible for their own proficiancy is like telling anyone who wants to drive a car they no longer have to do driver training or take a driving test before going on the road driving a 3,000lb bullet. I'm not too worried about grovernment mandated requirments because we as the voters who voted in the people who let us have our CCW rights can also make sure that we keep people in office who will keep the requirments resonable.

I'll ya what....I posted in a forum (which shall remain *nameless*).... that anyone who can afford to take a human life can afford a few boxes of bullets and a basic training class. The response was monkey ass brutal: .."How dare you ,ric to deny a poor old lady with no money the right to have a gun by having even the slightest requirements. WTF is wrong with you???"

I was even told that if a few innocent people were killed by people who weren't made to have even the most elementary training on when and when not to shoot, it was too bad and a reasonable sacrfice.

Stupid MFers shouldn't have the same rights as professionals and no Virginia, all men ain't created equal. No training time = No gun time.
 
To the contrary



Letting any one who wants to carry a gun be responsible for their own proficiancy is like telling anyone who wants to drive a car they no longer have to do driver training or take a driving test before going on the road driving a 3,000lb bullet. I'm not too worried about grovernment mandated requirments because we as the voters who voted in the people who let us have our CCW rights can also make sure that we keep people in office who will keep the requirments resonable. .

There is never a requirement that can be attached to a given right. Driving is not a right, but still, to poke little holes in your analogy… To get my driver’s license I took a single, 20 minute test, way back when I was 16. I’ve never been required to “practice” driving or prove my skills to anyone since that day. There is no requalification for your driver’s license. Cars are the number one cause of accident related fatalities in this country, ranking FAR more dangerous than firearms, yet it’s enough that I took a spin around the block and filled out some multiple choice questions over 11 years ago. I’m responsible for maintaining my own proficiency behind the wheel.

I'll ya what....I posted in a forum (which shall remain *nameless*).... that anyone who can afford to take a human life can afford a few boxes of bullets and a basic training class. The response was monkey ass brutal: .."How dare you ,ric to deny a poor old lady with no money the right to have a gun by having even the slightest requirements. WTF is wrong with you???" .

There should be no requirement to be able to ensure your own personal safety. People should WANT to take the necessary steps to effectively protect themselves.

I was even told that if a few innocent people were killed by people who weren't made to have even the most elementary training on when and when not to shoot, it was too bad and a reasonable sacrfice. .

There are already laws in place that punish the misuse of firearms. There should not be a preemptive punishment on those who DO abide by the law.

Stupid MFers shouldn't have the same rights as professionals and no Virginia, all men ain't created equal. No training time = No gun time.

You opinion does not affect my rights, just as my opinion does not effect yours. If you don’t believe that all men are created equal, maybe you’re living in the wrong country.

Btw, I notice you simply ignored my scenario that neatly refuted your "no such thing as a minor gun accident" nonsense.
 
There should be no requirement to be able to ensure your own personal safety. People should WANT to take the necessary steps to effectively protect themselves.

C'mon get serious ..

What do you think the vehicle accident rate in the US would be if there were no licensing and driving test requirements?

Are you advocating "benefit of the doubt" for a generation of people that have no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever???

Shall issue to mouth-breathing, pimpled face, smart ass punks that need pictures of hamburgers on the cash register to make change and can't tell time on an analog clock no requirement?

lmao
 
C'mon get serious ..

What do you think the vehicle accident rate in the US would be if there were no licensing and driving test requirements?

Are you advocating "benefit of the doubt" for a generation of people that have no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever???

Shall issue to mouth-breathing, pimpled face, smart ass punks that need pictures of hamburgers on the cash register to make change and can't tell time on an analog clock no requirement?

lmao

Frankly, I bet the accident rate would be about the same. There’s no correlation between having a driver’s license and having good driving skills. Five minutes on any major road will tell you that.

So, because people are required to take a 20 minute driving test and a multiple choice quiz ONCE, that's enough for you? I'd love it if all it took to obtain a carry permit was a 20 minute gun demo. Load, holster, unholster, fire, unload, field strip, and I'm out the door with my permit, I just have to get my picture retaken every couple of years. That sounds about equivalent, right?

Again, driving is a privilege, and frankly, a privilege that is far more dangerous than exercising the right to own and carry a gun. The amount of "training" one must go through to drive a car is laughable at best, and driving is simply a convenience. The ability to protect your life and that of your loved ones is a basic right and not something that should have any requirements placed on it.

How many people take more advanced driver training than what is required to get their license? How many people go the gun range at least several times a year? Your analogy is asinine and there’s no evidence to support any of the hysterical mouth-foaming you’re spouting here. 40 states in this country are shall-issue. You’d think if there was a visible problem we’d have noticed by now, no?
 
Frankly, I bet the accident rate would be about the same. There’s no correlation between having a driver’s license and having good driving skills. Five minutes on any major road will tell you that.

So, because people are required to take a 20 minute driving test and a multiple choice quiz ONCE, that's enough for you? I'd love it if all it took to obtain a carry permit was a 20 minute gun demo. Load, holster, unholster, fire, unload, field strip, and I'm out the door with my permit, I just have to get my picture retaken every couple of years. That sounds about equivalent, right?

Again, driving is a privilege, and frankly, a privilege that is far more dangerous than exercising the right to own and carry a gun. The amount of "training" one must go through to drive a car is laughable at best, and driving is simply a convenience. The ability to protect your life and that of your loved ones is a basic right and not something that should have any requirements placed on it.

How many people take more advanced driver training than what is required to get their license? How many people go the gun range at least several times a year? Your analogy is asinine and there’s no evidence to support any of the hysterical mouth-foaming you’re spouting here. 40 states in this country are shall-issue. You’d think if there was a visible problem we’d have noticed by now, no?

Angry - Find 10 people in your area that say they are not gun owners but would buy one if there were no license requirements whatsoever. Then give them your gun and you stand there while they display their weapons handling capabilities.
 
Angry - Find 10 people in your area that say they are not gun owners but would buy one if there were no license requirements whatsoever. Then give them your gun and you stand there while they display their weapons handling capabilities.

There is no license requirement to buy a gun in my state already and open carry without a permit is legal. People don't need to fill out paperwork to become a gun owner if they so choose to. A permit is only required for concealed carry. Statistically, every one in ten people I encounter has a gun on them, whether CC or OC, yet somehow I don't run to the hills everytime I see someone with a gun visible on their hip because,
"OMG, they might not have any training!!!"
Frankly it doesn't bother me one bit, however, even if it did, my opinion does not have any impact on that other person's rights. Face it, your argument is based on emotion, and the derailment tactic you just tried has zero bearing as far as I'm concerned.

I'm far more terrified of the idiot drivers in my state...
 
Last edited:
There is no license requirement to buy a gun in my state already and open carry without a permit is legal. People don't need to fill out paperwork to become a gun owner if they so choose to. A permit is only required for concealed carry. Statistically, every one in ten people I encounter has a gun on them, whether CC or OC, yet somehow I don't run to the hills everytime I see someone with a gun visible on their hip because,
"OMG, they might not have any training!!!"
Frankly it doesn't bother me one bit, however, even if it did, my opinion does not have any impact on that other person's rights. Face it, your argument is based on emotion, and the derailment tactic you just tried has zero bearing as far as I'm concerned.

I'm far more terrified of the idiot drivers in my state...

Angry - Go back in time (The US Constitution)...

When those men wrote those documents, people raised their children on farms, not the state raising them in projects. Children had a sense of responsibility at a very early age and did chores. They weren't raised by the TV, Xbox 360, PS3, etc, etc Go read through the hall of fame and then tell me about "Shall issue". There are dumbasses walking the planet today in heretofore unknown numbers. There are a lot of people that should have to get a license in order to procreate, much less own a handgun.

Rights are a two way street. Responsibility being the cost for a given right.
 
Angry - Go back in time (The US Constitution)...

When those men wrote those documents, people raised their children on farms, not the state raising them in projects. Children had a sense of responsibility at a very early age and did chores. They weren't raised by the TV, Xbox 360, PS3, etc, etc Go read through the hall of fame and then tell me about "Shall issue". There are dumbasses walking the planet today in heretofore unknown numbers. There are a lot of people that should have to get a license in order to procreate, much less own a handgun.

Rights are a two way street. Responsibility being the cost for a given right.

Right, and we can institute a whole slew of requirements one must meet before purchasing a gun. And the honest citizens that would have wanted guns anyway will get them. But those idiots who use guns to cause intentional harm, or pose a threat during the commission of a crime? They'll still have them too. Putting restrictions on law abiding citizens only inhibits law abiding citizens.
 
Angry - Go back in time (The US Constitution)...

When those men wrote those documents, people raised their children on farms, not the state raising them in projects. Children had a sense of responsibility at a very early age and did chores. They weren't raised by the TV, Xbox 360, PS3, etc, etc Go read through the hall of fame and then tell me about "Shall issue". There are dumbasses walking the planet today in heretofore unknown numbers. There are a lot of people that should have to get a license in order to procreate, much less own a handgun.

Rights are a two way street. Responsibility being the cost for a given right.

Teaching responsibility is a job for parents, not government. How many states need to be shall issue before you realize that this is NOT the problem you're making it out to be?
 
Last edited:
Then on with it....;)

Do you think teachers/students should be given "real" instruction by local PDs or in places that offered realistic supplemental training to students at mil/LEO discount prices?

I think it should be standard taught in high school
 
Right, and we can institute a whole slew of requirements one must meet before purchasing a gun. And the honest citizens that would have wanted guns anyway will get them. But those idiots who use guns to cause intentional harm, or pose a threat during the commission of a crime? They'll still have them too. Putting restrictions on law abiding citizens only inhibits law abiding citizens.

There is one possibility however, tessaesque.

If a law could be passed by which if a gun owner like theangryamerican (no offense just for the sake of the debate ;)) is seen showing a lack of skill, manipulating his firearm in a non-professional manner, or otherwise being an assclown while carrying - a pro can walk up to him on the spot and knock his sorry ass in the dirt and keep for his own use the weapon formerly owned by said assclown in question - then The People could support Shall Issue as the law of the land.

There could of course, be no legal redress for said assclown, not even if the event involved malice and forethought based on prior knowledge of the assclown's demonstrated lack of ability to act like decent folks.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?
 
There is one possibility however, tessaesque.

If a law could be passed by which if a gun owner like theangryamerican (no offense just for the sake of the debate ;)) is seen showing a lack of skill, manipulating his firearm in a non-professional manner, or otherwise being an assclown while carrying - a pro can walk up to him on the spot and knock his sorry ass in the dirt and keep for his own use the weapon formerly owned by said assclown in question - then The People could support Shall Issue as the law of the land.

There could of course, be no legal redress for said assclown, not even if the event involved malice and forethought based on prior knowledge of the assclown's demonstrated lack of ability to act like decent folks.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?

Or rather, if somebody is seen using a firearm in an unsafe or threatening manner towards another, they can be mandated to attend a safety class, with their weapon confiscated until the class is completed.

Exceptions for threatening use of your legally owned gun in your own home in defensive of your property, life, or lives of other residents.
 
There is one possibility however, tessaesque.

If a law could be passed by which if a gun owner like theangryamerican (no offense just for the sake of the debate ;)) is seen showing a lack of skill, manipulating his firearm in a non-professional manner, or otherwise being an assclown while carrying - a pro can walk up to him on the spot and knock his sorry ass in the dirt and keep for his own use the weapon formerly owned by said assclown in question - then The People could support Shall Issue as the law of the land.

There could of course, be no legal redress for said assclown, not even if the event involved malice and forethought based on prior knowledge of the assclown's demonstrated lack of ability to act like decent folks.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?

Hell ****ing no. You want to legally allow people to steal other people's property without compensation and to infringe upon ones' innate right to keep and bear arms for what reason? Because someone else said "I saw him acting like an assclown"? That won't be abused? It's dumb, you can use government force against someone through due process of law ONCE they have committed a crime; not prior. Particularly not on some perception of "assclown". Ridiculous.
 
I think it should be standard taught in high school

In an ideal nation, marksmanship training would/should be provided by the government as part of its responsibility to provide for the common defense. I believe many schools have basements that can be used as rifle ranges.

The problem is, we don't live in an ideal nation. Realistically, do you think legislation would ever pass requiring the government to provide firearms training to the populace?
 
There is one possibility however, tessaesque.

If a law could be passed by which if a gun owner like theangryamerican (no offense just for the sake of the debate ;)) is seen showing a lack of skill, manipulating his firearm in a non-professional manner, or otherwise being an assclown while carrying - a pro can walk up to him on the spot and knock his sorry ass in the dirt and keep for his own use the weapon formerly owned by said assclown in question - then The People could support Shall Issue as the law of the land.

There could of course, be no legal redress for said assclown, not even if the event involved malice and forethought based on prior knowledge of the assclown's demonstrated lack of ability to act like decent folks.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?

Um...you DO realize that every state has laws in place CURRENTLY to deal with the intentional or negligent misuse of firearms, right? Rather than being knocked on my ass, I can be fined, stripped of my permit, lose my right to own firearms or even be jailed, depending on the severity of my misuse.

...and you know what? I'm TOTALLY OK with that.
 
Last edited:
In an ideal nation, marksmanship training would/should be provided by the government as part of its responsibility to provide for the common defense. I believe many schools have basements that can be used as rifle ranges.

The problem is, we don't live in an ideal nation. Realistically, do you think legislation would ever pass requiring the government to provide firearms training to the populace?

Realistically? No, it would most likely never happen. But I would consider it a good thing that if standard PE, say senior year, off to the range to learn to shoot various guns.
 
...and you know what? I'm TOTALLY OK with that.

I would be OK with that only if in the course of your misuse you infringed upon the rights of others. Actually causing damage that is. Otherwise, maybe you can get a fine but at no point should the government use its force against your rights and liberties. Those punishments should be reserved only when one has infringed upon the rights and liberties of others.
 
Hell ****ing no. You want to legally allow people to steal other people's property without compensation and to infringe upon ones' innate right to keep and bear arms for what reason? Because someone else said "I saw him acting like an assclown"? That won't be abused? It's dumb, you can use government force against someone through due process of law ONCE they have committed a crime; not prior. Particularly not on some perception of "assclown". Ridiculous.

Hmmmm.....

The 2nd Amendment states:

"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." Ok, thats cool. Trouble is... a lot of folk focus solely on the "shall not be infringed" portion of the text and tend to forget the "well regulated" part.

In this context and the language of the time, "well regulated" does not mean lots of rules, laws and regulations, it means trained, equipped, and capable.


The average John Doe will not spend the money for proper training unless it is mandated. Recognizing that as reality, requiring training and/or exhibition of minimal skills as a requirement to exercise the right is not unreasonable.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?
 
I would be OK with that only if in the course of your misuse you infringed upon the rights of others. Actually causing damage that is. Otherwise, maybe you can get a fine but at no point should the government use its force against your rights and liberties. Those punishments should be reserved only when one has infringed upon the rights and liberties of others.

Sorry, Ikari, I did not mean to imply that all those punishments could be employed for ANY type of misuse, but rather that there are differing levels of misuse and depending on HOW I misused my gun, I could face one or more of those consequences, depending on what the laws are in my state. For Ric to state that someone should "knock me on my ass" for misusing a gun pales in comparison to the penalties that are already in place. He asked if anyone was ok with that in the hopes that his ridiculous hyperbole would sway the argument in his favor and I was simply stating that there are already worse consequences in place than what he's suggesting and I'm fine with that. :)
 
The Mayor sees nothing in the United States Constitution exempting college campuses from the strictures of the Second Amendment.

All those damn colleges, with their freaky retarded anti-American liberal socialists screaming about how their tenured positions in those colleges make them bastions and defenders of the First Amendment, are the same damn traitors trying to destroy the Second Amendment.

Well, Texas now says that the adults in college, whom the left insists are mature enought to vote, under the Twenty Sixth Amendment, should not be denied their Second Amendment freedoms as well.

There's a solution for all people who don't want to go to a college campus that will be required to allow its students to carry guns. Don't go. They're not worth educating anyway.
 
Hmmmm.....

The 2nd Amendment states:

"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." Ok, thats cool. Trouble is... a lot of folk focus solely on the "shall not be infringed" portion of the text and tend to forget the "well regulated" part.

In this context and the language of the time, "well regulated" does not mean lots of rules, laws and regulations, it means trained, equipped, and capable.


The average John Doe will not spend the money for proper training unless it is mandated. Recognizing that as reality, requiring training and/or exhibition of minimal skills as a requirement to exercise the right is not unreasonable.

Are you ok with that? Anybody?

No, I'm not ok with that. How do you become skilled with a gun if you can't have a gun till you demonstrate that you're skilled with it? A well regulated militia is indeed a necessity for a free state. It's still true to this very day. Because of that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. I don't want the State coming up with more restrictions and regulations. "Oh you have to be X skilled....wait did I say X, I meant Y....****, you're at Y level....well I meant Z". Piss on that.
 
I admit, I see it as a no brainer. Not something that requires much research. But no, Colorado, the entire state, is not enough. It is at the bottom of the list as to where I would expect trouble. Dosen't mean it won't happen one day, but I see Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, as places more likely to see problmes. Larger urban areas.

And yes, it is early yet. It takes time for these things to be properly investigated. So there is not likley to be much on it YET.




Not much. A search of students accidentally shooting themselves does produce results. How about you look?




Students don't own, run or hold liability at the school. Nor do they really face much of any kind of saftey concerns that would warrant having a gun.

Tell that to Virginia Tech.
 
Hmmmm.....

The 2nd Amendment states:

"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." Ok, thats cool. Trouble is... a lot of folk focus solely on the "shall not be infringed" portion of the text and tend to forget the "well regulated" part.

In this context and the language of the time, "well regulated" does not mean lots of rules, laws and regulations, it means trained, equipped, and capable.

And the use of the phrase "the people" means EVERYONE, not just the militia. The second clause is not dependent on the first clause, quite the reverse. The people have to have the freedom and the right to own and bear weapons because the militia needs them.

You may be shocked to realize this, but the "right" to keep and bear arms is older than the human race itself. The precursor hominid species were making weapons before homo sapiens ever evolved. Homo neanderthalis also had weapons.

No, while a miilitia is necessary to preserve individual freedom, one of the freedoms that militia is protecting is the freedom to own weapons.
 
I admit, I see it as a no brainer. Not something that requires much research. But no, Colorado, the entire state, is not enough. It is at the bottom of the list as to where I would expect trouble. Dosen't mean it won't happen one day, but I see Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, as places more likely to see problmes. Larger urban areas.

And yes, it is early yet. It takes time for these things to be properly investigated. So there is not likley to be much on it YET.

So until you can compile such data, you have no proper argument for restricting the rights of adults.


Not much. A search of students accidentally shooting themselves does produce results. How about you look?

Did they do so on campus? Is the accident rate above background?


Students don't own, run or hold liability at the school. Nor do they really face much of any kind of saftey concerns that would warrant having a gun.

And you've produced no data that would warrant using government force against the rights and liberties of adults in our society.
 
Back
Top Bottom