In light of the recent Virginia Tech shootings and the renewed debate on weapons for self-defense I got to thinking of a possible solution that would allow CCW permit holders to carry on college campuses.
First, I need to say that I support the 2nd Amendment right for individual Americans to keep and bear arms. I also believe that the majority of current firearms laws do infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights to one degree or another. However, I try to live in reality and I understand that there are many citizens in our nation that become uneasy even upon metioning the word "gun" let alone seeing or touching one. Because of that fear, the people that are either indifferent or opposed to guns have been able to get gun control laws passed to give them a sense of false security. I do believe everyone (convicted felons, persons without full citizenship, and minors excepted) should be able to determine whether they want to own firearms or not as well as the number and type of firearms. The problem with so-called gun or gun control laws is that the anti-gun crowd does not care about their personal right to own firearms, so they don't care whether these laws infringe upon the rights of those of us who choose to bear arms. The overwhelming majority of those that choose to own firearms are good and decent law-abiding citizens who are willing to fight for their own as well as their fellow citizen's safety. There are a small minority of gun owners that are criminals that prey upon the unarmed and weak that will take every advantage to achieve their criminal acts. The law-abiding citizens help to keep the criminals in check as local law enforcement organizations in the U.S. are reactionary in nature and rarely catch criminals "in the act." Police cannot be everywhere, but private citizens that are licensed to carry concealed weapons are just about everywhere and can instantly react to a criminal situation and quickly restore peace through decisive action.
My proposal for college campuses is to adopt programs to allow CCW permit holders to carry their weapons everywhere on campus. Institutions of education that are worried about not knowing who is carrying a weapon can register these individuals through their Dean's office in much the same way they apply to the state for their CCW permit. For eligiblity the school could stipulate having an in-state CCW permit, a minimum GPA, some volunteer security detail for sporting and other events, clean legal and academic records, and continuing firearms training/practice requirements. The institution could also implement a first responder network with the permit holders through school issued pager/cell phone as a reserve force for the school/local community security and police forces. Schools would be able to revoke the school permit upon any infraction of the requirements and re-instatement of the permit could be decided by the board of trustees upon review of circumstances/improvement in adhering to the requirements.
I think this could do many great things for the security of the school, the students, and the surrounding community. Campus crime would drop, emergencies would have a much quicker response, and depending on the number of students applying for the permits academic achievement could substantially increase. Having voluntary reserve security forces available to the surrounding communities would generate good will and safer communities.
Schools could additionally begin to offer firearms classes and programs which the NRA would no doubt be willing to support and facilitate. A campus gun club would offer students the opportunity to adopt a new hobby and can foster inter-collegiate competetive shooting events much like the sports and academic teams that currently compete.
Does this sound like a great idea? Are there other suggestions? Are there details that need some ironing out?
Please, tell me what you think.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just thought of another requi
April 18, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveJust thought of another requirement: Mandatory and random drug tests.
I also neglected to say, that I personally think it really is none of the University's business whether a licensed permit holder is packing or not on campus. But, the type of program and requirements I have proposed would go a long way to calming many people's fears and help them to feel a bit safer knowing that the CCW holders on campus are being held to a high standard.
As I said before, because it is a constitutional right, and the state has already deemed an individual responsible enough to covertly carry a weapon in public, that should be good enough for the university too. However, this type of program could also help many people to begin to accept guns in their midst. The only reason I would support a university's oversight in this realm is that people choose which university to attend and all universities have their own code of conduct to which the students adhere...I would never support this kind of government oversight over firearms owner's constitutional rights.
"I'd rather be bald than to pretend that I'm not!" --Mean Gene Dr. Love on comb-overs.
How can I make my point clear.
April 18, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Cool ArrowI would send my daughter to a CCW University.
"I also believe that the
April 18, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Agnostic front"I also believe that the majority of current firearms laws do infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights to one degree or another." - That's just foolishness. Should we be permitted to own nuclear warheads? How about flamethrowers? After all, they are both "arms." If you are a strict constructionist, as Scalia claims to be, and I am assuming you are, and also assuming, arguendo, that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear "arms," then the amendment should be interpreted it as the founders intended: you can keep and bear only those weapons available in the late 18th century. Anything else would require a new interpretation of the bill of rights, and we all would agree that the constitution and the bill of rights are simply not "living, breathing documents."
"Should we be permitted
April 18, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Should we be permitted to own nuclear warheads? How about flamethrowers? After all, they are both 'arms.' "
According to that logic, under the 1st Amendment child pornography must be a constitutional right too.
Don't be ridiculous. The Founding Fathers discussed what constitutes a militia in the Federalist Papers as the common citizenry equipped with similar personal/general issue weapons of standing armies of the day. In other words, the basic issue weapons of the relevant time (meaning the current time). In those days it was a musket--not cannons or other field pieces. These days the general issue weapons are a M16/A4, M249 SAW, 9mm, or .45 sidearm. Flame-throwers and nukes are not general issue items...they are also not available on the civilian market...in addition: "Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally discontinued their use, because of public opinion concerns that found their use inhumane, although they are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed. Thus, the US decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary." (from Wikipedia).
I don't know many people that have the resources to keep and maintain a flame-thrower or any nuclear weapons. I also can't imagine any adult desiring to protect his life, limb and property with a flame-thrower or a nuclear weapon. Using a flame-thrower to confront an intruder in your home is quite counter-productive, not only would you kill the intruder, but you would burn your house down and probably injure or kill yourself and your family. I'm not even going to detail the stupidity of using a nuclear weapon to defend one's life or property. Your argument is a typical and irrational anti-gun talking-point that "scares" people into supporting more restrictions by painting law-abiding gun owners as scorched earth all-or-nothing nutcases.
The fact is that artillery pieces and other "large" weapons, ammunition, and equipment (hand grenades, C4 explosives, rocket launchers, etc) are kept and maintained by the government and are only available to the government (and some items available to law enforcement) for purchase.
Your argument is not only lacking, it is ridiculous.
"I'd rather be bald than to pretend that I'm not!" --Mean Gene Dr. Love on comb-overs.
I grew up in a liberal JFK de
April 20, 2007 - 08:11 ET by InfoJunkieI grew up in a liberal JFK democratic environment here in the beautiful RED state of Idaho. I grew up around guns and hunting and all that. I have converted, and am happier in the conservative side of the coin, where logic has a voice. I have a CCW, and I am trained. I know the rules, review them periodically and follow them.
I have a friend who is from the L.A. area. He grew up in a high crime, gang infested area. He got out of that life and is now a successful and happy member of suburban Idaho.
Yesterday the conversation started with a simple debate about the topic of relaxing gun laws. He did not give the typical anti-gun argument, so this was a particularly interesting debate. He gave it to me from the perspecive of someone with an inner-city background and the first hand experience of violent crime. He argued that if I was going to get mugged I wouldn't know what hit me. That I would be beaten and robbed before I knew what hit me. I pointed out that I could not legally use my gun to defend myself because if I got punched and kicked and got my wallet stolen my life was not in immanent danger.
In an effort to understand his side of things I began presenting him with "What if..." scenarios of various types. He seemed to get frustrated and I took advantage of it. I pressed the issue and said that If I were mugged and my walled was stolen and my life was not technically in danger I would lay there and bleed, however if, after the encounter the guy pulled out a knife and said "Now I'm taking your wife with me!" I would produce my gun and defend our lives. He started to say that I would not be able to do anything against a hardened criminal, and my response was "At least I would be able to try!"
The next scenerio I presented was the final blow... I said, imagine you and I are on the VT campus, in the classroom of Norris Hall, when psycho dude comes in with his Glock... I asked him if he would rather say to me "Dude shoot him!!!" or "Dude I wish you had your gun right now!!!"
At this point he became violent and verbally abusive. I won, point made. The Cowboy with the CCW stayed cool, while the anti-gun ex-gang banger reverted to animalistic behavior.
There are 3 types of people in the world, Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves. If you are in an environment where there are 1000 sheep, and no sheepdogs, when a wolf sneeks in he knows he will succeed.
One can argue that a crazy person would not care if people have a gun or not, however, he would not have killed 32 people and injured 15 if even a small percentage of the students had a weapon.
I am waiting for the all-liberal SUICIDE PROTEST!!!
You're friend's "blind
April 20, 2007 - 08:47 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou're friend's "blind-sided mugging" scenario doesn't seem to be the normal M.O. for criminals. I am a frequent visitor to the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, and I haven't seen any examples of somebody being hit completely unaware. The typical mugging/robbery incidents seem to be some punk coming up with a weapon (or not) and demanding money or whatever they're after.
I've read things that criminals thrive on the perception of control they have over they're victims. The rush they get from the "control" feeds their ego more effectively than their low self esteem ever could. One of their biggest motives to mugging people is that rush. Criminals could usually get money/cars/jewelry, etc much easier through breaking and entering with the added bonuses of the greater possibility of no witnesses and better personal safety (given the target of their burglarization is unoccupied).
Maybe things are different in L.A., but I can tell you that my friends that grew up or used to live in L.A. all seem to be trying a little to hard to be tough and hardened and to make L.A. sound like the scariest place on earth. When I get in conversations about gangs, crime, etc with them no matter what I relate to them, they feel a pressing need to "one-up" the story.
I think it is important for more law-abiding citizens to carry weapons wherever they go...it levels the playing field for when the wolves appear.
"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then toss it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you asked for in the first place!" --Bill McNeal, NewsRadio episode 3.17
Thanks for the link!I am wait
April 20, 2007 - 08:51 ET by InfoJunkieThanks for the link!
I am waiting for the all-liberal SUICIDE PROTEST!!!
Just caught a couple glarin
April 20, 2007 - 08:59 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveJust caught a few glaring errors in the 1st sentences of the first and second second paragraphs. They should read:
Your friend's "blind-sided mugging" scenario doesn't seem to be the normal M.O. for criminals.
I have read things that indicate that criminals thrive on the perception of control they have over their victims.
I had to make these corrections because I have jumped on other people's glaring errors. So to show that I am not perfect as well, I willingly acknowledge my errors.
"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then toss it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you asked for in the first place!" --Bill McNeal, NewsRadio episode 3.17
Yes, lets stick to the meanin
April 21, 2007 - 21:08 ET by NL207Yes, lets stick to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as it was intended by its authors. What the authors intended was to insure that every able bodied man have a copy of the standard infantry weapon of the day. Cast into modern terms this means every head of household ought to own a full auto M-16 assault rifle equipped with bayonet and grenade launcher.
Only goof balls like you stick their head in the sand and try to cast this into the smoothbore flintlock musket of the Continental Army.
This might be of interest to this discussion. It contains among other things, this quote from Patrick Henry, ""The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun". "
Now, do you still think the framers of the Constitution would accept your position on firearms and gun control? I don't. No reasonable man could construe the references in the paper I linked as supporting such bans.
Fact: Anti-Gun Laws do NOT pr
April 18, 2007 - 16:34 ET by AvatarFact: Anti-Gun Laws do NOT prevent gun crime. A murderer is going to murder someone whether he has to illegally acquire a gun, or stab someone.
Fact: Allowing law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun will ensure that no crazed lunatic will ever again reach 32 dead and 15 injured. A madman with a .45 ACP bullet in his head or chest can harm no one.
Good post!
The Avatar
I know most of you hate me be
April 20, 2007 - 14:11 ET by ThoughtPoliceI know most of you hate me because of my beliefs about 9/11, but we may agree on this one..
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819
Kucinich is not only having limited investigations into incorrect information surrounding the events of 9/11, but he is also calling for the impeachment of Cheney supposedly this April 25th. Those two things make me happier than Insane thinking he is right about his stance on 9/11.
However, I do not agree with his legislation to take away all ability of civilians to carry guns.
When are you going to wake up
April 21, 2007 - 21:13 ET by NL207When are you going to wake up and actually think for yourself? Hasn't it occurred to you that statists like Kucinich are the greatest threat to liberty in this country, and most all of these jerks oppose the War on Terror? This is no coincidence, is it?