The Jambar

"Here, we learn to broaden our minds"

Apparently minds "are broaden" as long as the end results are something you approve of. . Otherwise they're just "un-evolved". .

Sounds like your more closed minded than most. . .

I agree with the other comment. These editorials seem to be getting dumber and dumber. YSU is in FUCKING YOUNGSTOWN! I know it is hard to see through those rose colored glasses, Jambar editorial board, but there are a lot of crazy motherfuckers in Youngstown. Just because somebody has a gun on a college campus does NOT imply that the gun carrier intends to perform a reenactment of Columbine. It could just be that said person doesn't want to get stabbed with a screwdriver in front of the education building IN BROAD DAYLIGHT or get shot in a McDonald's robbery gone awry IN BROAD DAYLIGHT (2 real crimes perpetrated in the YSU campus/area in the early 2000s when I was a student there). Get your heads out of your collective ass, editorial board.

"Period. End of discussion."
Why? Because you say so? Who died and put you in charge? Way to broaden our minds.
How odd, that you promptly continue the discussion - Oh wait - I see - you're wanting to end the discussion so you can run your mouth without interference.
Now that's what I call intelligent debate and diplomacy...

Well, you can read the hysterical rants of so-called journalists who have no clue as to what they write about...

or can read the truth for yourself...

http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

What an insipid, STUPID editorial! As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun! And that criminals on EITHER side of the law are stopped by FIREARMS, not by sweet words! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!! -Wendy Weinbaum

The editorial board is really blessed. I envy them.

It must be wonderful to have such strong all-encompassing opinions. Opinions that are meant to restrict the freedoms of so many others. Opinions that are absolutely unencumbered by facts.

So the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights due not apply on college campuses, 'eh?
Tell it to the English and Journalism Depts.

"Period. End of discussion."

No, it's not -- it wasn't a discussion the way you tried to have it all your way and the comments make it clear that it would not be the END in any case....

Your thesis is that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply fully on college campuses.

You also seem to believe that there is some "magical boundary" around a college (some of which are fully embedded into the local neighborhood) that prevents criminals from entering, and especially from entering while armed.

The discussions currently disfavoring "guns on campus" typically try dishonestly to both ignore the fact above and to ignore the fact that only those WHO CAN ALREADY CARRY that firearm legally would be allowed to do so on the campus.

This means only adults, only the law-abiding, and in most places only those with training or knowledge of the law and safe firearm handling.

It also means that any drinking or intoxication while carrying would REMAIN illegally.

You don't have to worry about the legal, responsible, sober, and law-abiding gun owners.

It is the criminals and other irresponsible people who don't obey such laws anyway who are the problem.

Allowing concealed carry has inevitably NOT resulted in problems (40 shall issue states and counting) but rather has shown a statistical correlation where VIOLENT CRIME DECREASES as more such permits are issued.

It is also true that "rampage murders" practically disappear in such states, and those that do happen just as inevitably occur in "gun free zones" where law-abiding citizens may not carry and thus only the criminals have weapons.

How about that? Reduce violent crime, eliminate "rampage murder" sprees, and support the Constitutional rights of all citizens at the same time.

Wendy Weidenbaum: As a second-generation, native-born American whose forebears came here from the Jewish Pale in Russia, I'd very much appreciate your explaining what the hell you meant by this: ". . . a Jewess in the US. . . ."

I suppose it's a roundabout way of telling us that you're a female citizen of Israel on a visit to my homeland. Or perhaps you simply mean that someone who observes the Hebrew faith rather than that of a Catholic or Methodist should be expected to have an outlook different from those "others."

To clarify, I agree with your expressed sentiment but why are you distinguishing yourself from the others here?

I found the thinking upon which this editorial was based to be amateurish and naive. It is as if they don't comprehend the breadth of real-world problem-solving scenarios.

Indeed, in rare and justified circumstances, lethal force is precisely the problem-solving method that is needed. And unfortunately, when that happens, it is needed immediately, and wherever one might be (including college campuses). That sort of method goes back to the natural right of self-preservation. That is why every state authorizes citizen use of deadly force under certain circumstances. That is why we have the right to arms, and that is why the constitution guarantees that the right shall not be infringed.

That is also why just last year, the US Supreme Court said this: "... we find that [the second amendment guarantees] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

College campuses are special places, and they should be. But sensitive places there are not. Surely, our right to bear arms for lawful purpose cannot be abridged on college campuses.

Way I understand the situation an armed student managed to appear on campus without any difficulty. Had that student intended any harm the Kampus Kops would have arrived just in time to draw chalk marks around the bodies.
Yet another example of how so called "gun free" campuses are not and make no attempt to be. They just levy rules and policies that handicap those folks willing to obey the law. Anyone intent on causing harm has free reign near as I can tell. Strangely reminiscent of the news release by Virginia Tech that students and parents could feel safe on campus less than a year before Mr. Cho turned that same campus into a killing field.

So the editorial board gets to decide which Constitutionally-guaranteed rights can be summarily dismissed on school campus?

Any other rights you want to trash? Free speech? Right to trial? Maybe you want to bring back slavery?

No wonder campuses are prime kidnapping/killing zones. Not only are students barred from effective self-defense, but the First Amendment is used by dumbasses to ensure it stays that way!

The only "safe ones" in "Gun Free" zones are the criminals who don't comply with laws or rules and then have defenseless victims on which to prey.

Got Common Sense?

"To the rest of the campus community, let's talk common sense. First Amendment rights deserve the same respect as any other amendment. Having said as much, free speech has no place on a college campus."

Fixed!

My Second Amendment rights don't end at college campuses, schools, or anywhere. If there had been teachers, visiting parents or other adults carrying firearms at Columbine, that tragedy would have been largely averted as the moment those two miscreants pulled out weapons there would or at least COULD have been a response. Ditto for VA Tech! Adult Students could have stopped the slaughter by Cho. Heck, if even the 30 unarmed students attacked cho, most would have loved, but they were trained to be sheep and now they are dead.

We need to realize there is an appropriate place for violence---and that is to oppose evil. This pacifist is the un-evolved one because he is either too stupid or naive to know that one cannot use diplomacy against evildoers.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper

The editorial is just plain ignorant.

I think everyone that responded to this article in favor of guns on campus should have themselves checked for mental disabilities. Especially SamAdams1776 who believes teachers and parents with guns would have meant no bloodshed at Columbine. Those kids obviously had no regard for their lives or anyone else's, so pulling a gun on them would have only meant a firefight, which probably would have meant more bloodshed, not less. And to Wendy Weinbaum, yes, the American Revolution was fought with unregistered guns, because gun registry didn't exist then. And to Jack Burton, I didn't realize that working for a paper made you a so-called journalist, I thought that made you a journalist, and the sight you recommend is simply a sight full of rants from organizations like the NRA with a little bit of statistics thrown in. Hmm. . .I wonder if the NRA is going to have an argument for or against guns on campus. Your recommended sight has no more truth to it than the editorial you feel so strongly about. You all need to pull your heads out of your asses.

Hey JamFan
When criminal killers come to "no gun zones" they do so because they have defensless victims. You might also notice they are stopped by guns turned on themselves or people that come with guns to stop them. CCW holders are trained, background checked and Government sanctioned. Thus guns can be used for good or bad. CDC says Americans use guns to stop crime from 1.5 to 2 million times per year. Most without firing a shot. Now thats many more good uses than bad. Get a grip on reality. These are facts you cannot deny. All your other statments are unproven opinions.

How easily you invoke the names of Harris, Klebold & Cho, and conveniently leave out the names of the students who stopped a violent campus rampage at a Virginia law school, or the High School Principal in Paducah, KY, who stopped Luke Woodham's murder spree by running to his car to get a gun.

Great editorial board you have there, who advocates education & debate, as long as it fits into their narrow confines of what is acceptable and what is not. Morons!

JamFan
posted 11/04/09 @ 5:04 PM EST
I think everyone that responded to this article in favor of guns on campus should have themselves checked for mental disabilities. Especially SamAdams1776 who believes teachers and parents with guns would have meant no bloodshed at Columbine. Those kids obviously had no regard for their lives or anyone else's, so pulling a gun on them would have only meant a firefight, which probably would have meant more bloodshed, not less.


SamAdams1776 replies:

Then you would be WRONG. In 2003 I believe there was a Nigerian student (a prohibited person under the GCA of 1968 from having firearms--how did THAT law work out for you?) at the Appalachian Law School who went on a rampage and two students coming in from the parking lot heard shots and independently got their weapons and confronted the killer. There was no firefight. The killer dropped his weapon, but if he hadn't the one or both of the two students would have Killed the Nigerian Student where he was standing. But frequently such criminals kill themselves when confronted.

You're a coward-pure and simple. This issue is about freedom and especially the freedom and protected right to defend one's own life and if necessary others who are defenseless. The police cannot be everywhere and furthermore by SCOTUS ruling are not obligated to protect individuals and cannot be sued for failure to protect lives. And I will brook no nonsense about "taking the law into your own hands. Under the 10th Amendment (10A) the law IS under each person's hands.

We all have police powers. And when there is no immediate "collective" authority in an emergency (you obviously being a collectivist/statist, will understand the term I assume), I will exercise my individual right to defend myself and exercise the police powers I possess by default under the 10A. My right to defend my life does not end at some defined space. PERIOD!

At Columbine, had Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold been confronted, they might have engaged a would-be defender, but cowards that they were would likely have committed suicide as they actually did when confronted by armed police (too little to late), and as Cho did and as the killer in the Colorado Church also did when confronted by an armed church-goer.

The decision on whether I can or should engage a bad guy in a firefight is not your decision to make for me or anyone else. I will decide this, and my life is important to me no matter where I am. Restricting where law-abiding persons may defend their lives creates victim disarmament zones for surely the bad guys will be armed in those areas. Grow up and grow a set!

"Second Amendment rights deserve the same respect as any other amendment. Having said as much, guns have no place on a college campus."

Every Amendment in the Bill of Rights belongs on campus, and anyone who believes otherwise needs to renounce their citizenship.