So if they succeeded presumably the administration couldn't expel armed students any more.
Empty holsters or empty heads?
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/ccrkba.backs.sccc.empty.holster.protest.htm
2007-10-22 05:23:34 · 6 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
This group of idiots think giving guns to students will help? First of all it will not pass because arming students will make it easier for a campus shooting will occur. Second just because a few nut cases get together and try to pass a stupid law doesn't mean that it will pass.
Gun dealers use the right to bear arms to sell guns and they have uninformed people through the NRA to support their causes. Do they care about safety or profits? Profits of course why else do they oppose terriorist being banned to own guns. If they had their way they would sell guns to every muslim extremist and arm Iran with any weapons obtainable. This bill is about gun dealer profits and most Americans know its a bunch of bull.
2007-10-22 05:37:02 · answer #1 · answered by john a 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I'd rather be surrounded by people with guns when a nutjob decides to start shooting. How many people will lunatic X shoot after they start shooting back? An unarmed public is a defenseless public.
That said, nobody has the authority to prohibit you from carrying a gun (read the Constitution, it's a fascinating document), so I personally don't even see the need for this action, except perhaps at private schools (tough call, since most of them also receive public funds).
Relevant section of the Constitution:
"Amendment II (1791)
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."
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
The debate over whether this is an individual right or a component of the requirement to maintain a militia is irrelevant, based on the final clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please note, Congress has the authority to override this ammendment with a new one, which may make sense to add clarification for people with psychiatric issues or criminal records. They have not done so, therefore, all laws restricting weopons are Unconstitutional.
Feel free to think I'm a right-wing nutcase. I may be. Doesn't make me wrong. ;-)
2007-10-22 12:43:03 · answer #2 · answered by ima_super_geek 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, you're right. It's much better to have unlicensed, untrained, and unlawful individuals coming onto campuses and murdering unarmed, defenseless students.
We wouldn't want to extend the same rights to students that we do to citizens of the state.
Or weren't you aware that in some states, while anyone with a license can legally carry a firearm onto a campus, each individual campus' administration can overrule their students' right to carry on campus. Nevermind the people who illegally bring weapons whereever they want to commit a crime.
2007-10-22 12:30:17 · answer #3 · answered by bmattj121 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
maybe if a responsible person had a gun Columbine wouldn't have happened or is that a case that the good of the collective doesn't override the good of the person, kind of like abortion
2007-10-22 12:35:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
"An armed society is a polite society"
--Robert A Heinlein
2007-10-22 12:28:41 · answer #5 · answered by Trollbuster 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Poor you. You have no idea what you are talking about.
2007-10-22 12:28:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋