• 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

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the case. I think your side reads too much into things for some strange reason.

I have no emotional attachment or concerns towards guns. It is nothing more than a hammer, a tool, use for a purpose. The reasons it was mention in the constitution no longer apply, making the amendment obsolete, but still law. I rarely think about it, but don't want them in my classroom. There is simply no need or purpose in the classroom for them. There are no shootouts in which they'd be required to have one.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

What've tried to point out is there is a difference between a 21 year old and a thrity one year old. Those ten years make a major difference. You may be an adult at twentyone, but your brain is not yet fully developed. And we see twentyone year olds make serious mistakes routinely.

And while I understand your bottomline, the fact is they are more likely to make mistakes. That fact doesn't change.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that's not the case. I think your side reads too much into things for some strange reason.

I have no emotional attachment or concerns towards guns. It is nothing more than a hammer, a tool, use for a purpose. The reasons it was mention in the constitution no longer apply, making the amendment obsolete, but still law. I rarely think about it, but don't want them in my classroom. There is simply no need or purpose in the classroom for them. There are no shootouts in which they'd be required to have one.
Click to expand...
I reject the notion that anyone should be forced to show a need to exorcise any constitutionally protected right.

Case in point: Today I'm picking up my foster brother from school. I won't even be getting out of the car. However, since firearms are banned from school property, I have to leave me weapon at home. So, please explain to me why I, a 32 y/o soldier and CCW holder, am a public safety hazard.

Also, having them in class is incidental. Students usually need the firearms in the parking lot, not the classroom, but they have to have them in the classroom in order to already be armed when they get to the parking lot.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I reject the notion that anyone should be forced to show a need to exorcise any constitutionally protected right.

Case in point: Today I'm picking up my foster brother from school. Since firearms are banned, I have to leave me weapon at home. So, please explain to me why I, a 32 y/o soldier and CCW holder, am a public safety hazard.

You see, having them in class is incidental. Students usually need the firearms in the parking lot, not the classroom, but they have to have them in the classroom in order to already be armed when they get to the parking lot.
Click to expand...

I can see a single reason why that would bother you. I seldom bring my hammer with me everywhere. And no, students don't need them in the parking lot. Millions go to class each day and never need anything of the kind. This world isn't quite that dangerous. Sometimes all we fear is fear itself. If you can't get to class without a fire arm, you have problems your firearm won't handle.
 
Boo Radley said:
What've tried to point out is there is a difference between a 21 year old and a thrity one year old. Those ten years make a major difference. You may be an adult at twentyone, but your brain is not yet fully developed. And we see twentyone year olds make serious mistakes routinely.

And while I understand your bottomline, the fact is they are more likely to make mistakes. That fact doesn't change.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if there's a difference between a 21 year old and a 30 year old. They are both adults, both have the full of their rights and liberties recognized. That's it. Oh, someone may be more likely to do X. Fine, but what's the point. There's a **** ton of X's in the US because of freedom. People will abuse free speech and religion and association; do we start removing those abilities from certain segments of the population? No, you can't do anything until someone does X. That's how our system works, it is REACTIVE not proactive. I can't believe this has to be explained. Someone had to do something first before you can employ government force against their rights.

All sorts of people make serious mistakes routinely, it's not limited to the young or the old. There's a lot of people who **** up a lot of stuff for a lot of various reasons. Just because something like that happens to be the case does not mean that you are then justified in removing their ability to exercise certain rights. You are not. This is one of the consequences of freedom. They actually have to act against the rights of others before you can justly call in government force against their rights. That is the bottom line, and in that accord what you call for is nothing short of tyranny. You wish to restrict rights not based on action and proof; but rather on supposition and feeling.
 
Boo Radley said:
I can see a single reason why that would bother you. I seldom bring my hammer with me everywhere. And no, students don't need them in the parking lot. Millions go to class each day and never need anything of the kind. This world isn't quite that dangerous. Sometimes all we fear is fear itself. If you can't get to class without a fire arm, you have problems your firearm won't handle.
Click to expand...

And you fear firearms. Not because they will do anything wrong, but because they are there. That is quite evident. So who's "fear" are we supposed to listen to? The one who brings a gun because he feels he should be entitled to exercise his rights, or the one who fears others exercising their rights?
 
Boo Radley said:
I can see a single reason why that would bother you. I seldom bring my hammer with me everywhere. And no, students don't need them in the parking lot. Millions go to class each day and never need anything of the kind. This world isn't quite that dangerous. Sometimes all we fear is fear itself. If you can't get to class without a fire arm, you have problems your firearm won't handle.
Click to expand...

People say that I carry a gun because I'm paranoid. That's preposterous; if I have a gun, what is there to be afraid of?
 
Boo and Ikari, your utilitarian argument is pointless. It doesn't matter because gun ownership is a fundamental right.

It is truly irrelevant whether or not exercising the right to gun ownership is dangerous. Of course it's dangerous to own a gun. But it is, and this cannot be stressed enough, a fundamental right.

Boo, do you know what a fundamental right is?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Boo and Ikari, your utilitarian argument is pointless. It doesn't matter because gun ownership is a fundamental right.

It is truly irrelevant whether or not exercising the right to gun ownership is dangerous. Of course it's dangerous to own a gun. But it is, and this cannot be stressed enough, a fundamental right.

Boo, do you know what a fundamental right is?
Click to expand...

A fundamental right that can be regulated. It is not absolute anywhere at all times. Nor should it be. I do think congress should tackle this at some point, revisitng an outdated amendment. Not that I want guns taken away, or think they should be, but to make re4asonable restictions easier, and more in line with where we are today.
 
Jerry said:
People say that I carry a gun because I'm paranoid. That's preposterous; if I have a gun, what is there to be afraid of?
Click to expand...

I don't carry one and I'm not afraid at all. That you think you would be without does suggest paranoia as possibility. Just saying. . . . . ;)
 
Ikari said:
And you fear firearms. Not because they will do anything wrong, but because they are there. That is quite evident. So who's "fear" are we supposed to listen to? The one who brings a gun because he feels he should be entitled to exercise his rights, or the one who fears others exercising their rights?
Click to expand...

Fear them? A reasonable respect. Guns are a tool with a purpose. There is no purpose for one on campus.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Boo and Ikari, your utilitarian argument is pointless. It doesn't matter because gun ownership is a fundamental right.

It is truly irrelevant whether or not exercising the right to gun ownership is dangerous. Of course it's dangerous to own a gun. But it is, and this cannot be stressed enough, a fundamental right.

Boo, do you know what a fundamental right is?
Click to expand...

Deeper than a constitutional one?
 
Jerry said:
If you can't trust a 21 y/o with a pistol in peaceful environment, how can you trust an 18 y/o with a missile in a combat zone?

.
Click to expand...
There's a BIG difference between a 21yo with a pistol in a peaceful environ and a 18yo launching missles, and that's RESPONSIBILITY.
 
Boo Radley said:
Many seem to have never seen Malow's hieracy of needs. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


It's Maslow's, and I probably read it before you were born. If you're going to try to show off your knowlege at least spell it right.
 
Boo Radley said:
Fear them? A reasonable respect. Guns are a tool with a purpose. There is no purpose for one on campus.
Click to expand...


Tell that to a few dozen dead VA Tech students who might have liked to have had a better chance of defending themselves. :roll:



Are you trying to say that a need for armed self-defense NEVER occurs on ANY campus? :doh
 
Boo Radley said:
Fear them? A reasonable respect. Guns are a tool with a purpose. There is no purpose for one on campus.
Click to expand...

Says you, you have still not proven it.
 
Goshin said:
It's Maslow's, and I probably read it before you were born. If you're going to try to show off your knowlege at least spell it right.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a typo. **** happens. :shrug:

I was born in 1958; you?
 
WI Crippler said:
Self-defense isn't a good enough reason?
Click to expand...

You expecting a gun fight on campus? Seriously? I taught at the second most violent campus in America according to one study, and never needed a gun. Don't know anyone who did.
 
Goshin said:
Tell that to a few dozen dead VA Tech students who might have liked to have had a better chance of defending themselves. :roll:



Are you trying to say that a need for armed self-defense NEVER occurs on ANY campus? :doh
Click to expand...

People on your own side of this admit students being armed wouldn't have stopped that, and one police chief said students being armed would hinder them in such a situation.
 
I give up... isnt this all just to get people to buy more guns? :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
People on your own side of this admit students being armed wouldn't have stopped that, and one police chief said students being armed would hinder them in such a situation.
Click to expand...

Don't put words in "my side's" mouth. An armed citizen always has the potential to put a stop to a situation such as VA tech. You're ignoring a legitimate reason to be armed on campus: self-defense. Completely aside from high-profile things like the VA shootings, there are large numbers of rapes and other assualts on college campuses.

Fight the trend if you wish; you're on the losing side. Americans like concealed carry and it is only going to grow from here.
 
Boo Radley said:
People on your own side of this admit students being armed wouldn't have stopped that, and one police chief said students being armed would hinder them in such a situation.
Click to expand...

So you teaching at a school and a police chief's opinion prove your argument and that self-defense doesn't justify the protection of a students constitutional right?
 
Goshin said:
Don't put words in "my side's" mouth. An armed citizen always has the potential to put a stop to a situation such as VA tech. You're ignoring a legitimate reason to be armed on campus: self-defense. Completely aside from high-profile things like the VA shootings, there are large numbers of rapes and other assualts on college campuses.

Fight the trend if you wish; you're on the losing side. Americans like concealed carry and it is only going to grow from here.
Click to expand...

They also have the potential to make things worse. Weapons are not magic. And this isn't the old west. And no, I don't think weapons are need on campus for self defense. And I think most police agree with me on that. The police who trained us here said hell no. And I linked one to explain why.

American's like guns, and they do have a very skewed view of them. That's true. But that doesn't make them correct. Weapons are no more than a tool, and offer little in terms of safety. We shoot ourselves more than anything else, and we're just not very good with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom