Second Amendment Battle at Colorado State University
Guns are part of America’s culture. They always have been, and as long as we abide by the Constitution of the United States and its adjoining Bill of Rights, they always will be. The Second Amendment reads: “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.”
It is worth noting that this amendment marks the only place in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where our Founding Fathers explicitly described something as “necessary to the security of a free state.” And this is because the right to keep and bear arms makes the exercise of so many other rights possible. For example, without guns, how are we to defend our lives, our property, or our freedom to speak our minds against a tyrannical government?
No wonder George Washington, the first president of the United States, said: “A free people ought to be armed.” He knew that to deny a people the right to arms was to deny them many other rights, and even freedom itself.
Yet as clear as our Founding Fathers were on the importance of gun ownership and gun usage, and the role both play in “the security of a free state,” liberals in the United States have spent the last few decades doing their best to destroy the Second Amendment all at once if possible, but piece by piece if necessary. Part of that attempt is now visible at Colorado State University (CSU) in Ft. Collins, Colorado, where that school’s Board of Governors recently voted to ban students who possess a viable concealed carry permit from carrying their legally concealed weapons on campus.
Although students have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon on the CSU campus since the passage of Colorado’s concealed carry law in 2003 — and although there have been absolutely no incidents of crime as a result of the exercise of that right — some faculty members, like associate professor Dan Turk, decided their campus would be safer if students were not allowed to carry guns.
How much safer can you get than zero incidents of crime resulting from concealed carry permit holders bringing their weapons on campus?
Moreover, the positive results of allowing students to carry guns on CSU’s campus have been undeniable. Whereas “there were 47 reported sexual offenses” on the CSU campus in 2002, the year before students were allowed to keep concealed weapons to defend themselves, “in 2008, there were [but] 2” such offenses. And according to David Burnett of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), “[CSU] saw a similar drop in crime in virtually every other category after concealed carry became legal.”
Another example of how the left’s agenda makes the average man less safe. I hope this ban dies before instituted.
I guess the students at Colorado State will just have to learn to depend upon the campus police and the administration for their safety, the same way the students at Virginia Tech, University of Northern Illinois, and the students of other schools have learned to do. Of course they won’t be safer, but since when did liberals really care whether the people were safe or not?
“It is worth noting that this amendment marks the only place in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where our Founding Fathers explicitly described something as “necessary to the security of a free state.””
It’s also worth nothing that they were talking about the part of that sentence that gun-activists seem to think not relevant to the implementation of the amendment.
“For example, in 2004, the FBI’s annual report showed that guns were used 2.5 million times that year in self-defense.”
Can anyone provide a link to this FBI report?
Matt.
Since the assertion ‘firearms are bad, firearms are evil, firearms cause evil and badness, therefore…” is an article of faith to the Atheistic-secular-progressive-nihilistic-left, and adhering to the assertion reinforces narcissistic feelings of virtue and self approval, facts cannot be allowed, and will not be allowed to alter this self approval. Note how often, in the vernacular, members of this faith use the words “I feel that…” followed by a conclusion, when the preceeding words should have been “I think that…” “I feel that asparagus causes itchy toes, I feel that guns make me unsafe..” of whatsoever.
Facts!? “I feel that facts are beside the point”.
“From my cold dead hands” – period.
AWR Hawkins – spot-on. The rot in the academy knows no bounds. Reality is what the jokers want it to be, not what it is.
Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is NEVER the answer. And I’ve never understood the rationale for thinking a licensed, concealed carry permit holder is suddenly dangerous if he or she carries the same gun on campus that he or she carries to WAL-MART, McDonald’s, and the Mall. Of course, because the move to ban guns is driven by liberals, I should simply accept the fact that it’s illogical to begin with.
#3:
“It’s also worth nothing that they were talking about the part of that sentence that gun-activists seem to think not relevant to the implementation of the amendment.”
Wow. That sentence should be taken out back and shot.
Do you think you should be able to carry a gun into federal court?
You have no standing?
#10 by Sleazeiks
Of course I do. I understand they sometimes have criminals in the court. Naturally I would want to protect myself in an environment like that.
What would make the courtroom more dangerous if I could carry a gun into court? You have to be assuming that I have criminal tendencies because I have a concealed carry permit, in order to make this assertion. My gun won’t shoot itself, so you must believe that I am more likely to shoot someone inside a court room than I am outside of a court room. How so? Sometimes policies which sound like they will make us safer don’t turn out to be useful policies on any level.
From your link.
“* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.”
With nothing, nada, zero, zilch, empty set, evidence to support it.
And you bozos actually believe it? Really? 6,850 times a day?
You folks are delusional.
It always seem that the Left is more concerned about calling people, who don’t agree with them, names than to look up facts or to listen to a different idea.
Armed students on campus may sound like a good idea but in reality it is a recipe for disaster. Assume a crazed person invades campus and begins shooting people. Upon hearing gunshots, several armed students pull handguns from their backpacks and start looking for the shooter. So now we have a crazed shooter plus several armed students roaming through campus. Neither the armed students nor responding police officers would have any way of knowing who is the shooter and who is a Good Samaritan. The downside risk is too great.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
A bad rule that will endanger students.
Solution: don’t obey.
Good firearms safety is part of civility. You always keep firearms pointed in a safe direction. You always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Simple and basic concepts self-identify who is a crazed shooter and who is a law abiding citizen participating in the act of self-defense. You are not protecting yourself nor anyone around you if you are utilizing your arms in a way that is dangerous or threatening. If you are to defend yourself you must be prepared to do so, do so safely and do so in a way that will not unintentionally harm others.
I wish people would do that driving to work: practice good driving and safety awareness. Not doing so in a car at highway speed is asking for trouble, and I’ve seen less road civility than I have lack of civility with firearms from those who understand that they must control themselves to be safe. Simple training in firearms safety is far less costly, less time consuming and yet just as vital as learning good driving habits… and you are likely to keep up good firearms safety than you are to keep up good driving habits.
Creating ‘gun free’ zones means that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Bad enough to have to risk your life to the damned bad drivers on the highway. Why should anyone put their lives in the hands of officials who cannot be omnipresent, will take precious time to figure out what is going on not bieng on the spot, and then have to orient on gunfire where more innocents are threatened? Or do we really like that when killers are loose: defenseless citizens subject to the whims of violence. The world is not nice, not sweet, and the moment you think it is you are heading for a world of hurt. Being civilized means controlling yourself in the face of danger, being a citizen means not being a subject to those threatening you be it individuals or the State. If you can’t trust yourself for any protection, then how can you trust anyone else to take care of you? Or is being a subject with no say in your life preferable to being a citizen?
jharp…….I’m sure you have a sign proudly displayed in your yard that states “This Home is Gun Free”, don’t you?
OK Mike, Matt & Jharp
If you are comfortable curtailing the constitutional rights of adults who happen to be on college campuses, which ones are next? Maybe all campus newspapers should be subject to administrative review. Maybe we can ban all student protests. Maybe we shouldn’t allow students to vote. Maybe we should ban any student groups based on religious affiliations.
It’s worth noting that the ban does not carry the force of law. If it did the Sheriff’s Dept. would be compelled to enforce it. All that the good students of CSU need to do is keep their firearms well concealed and ignore the ban. What’s more important, ones personal safety or the risk of what, a suspension? I, for one, have a Colorado CWP and should I ever find myself on that campus(doubtful) I won’t be disarming just because some pointy headed administrator says I should.
jharp:
“With nothing, nada, zero, zilch, empty set, evidence to support it.”
Other than, of course, the FOOTNOTES! You lazy, lazy, lazy man.
O.K. Matthew. Define militia before you try to misinterpret the “militia clause” Try looking in the federalist papers for the definition used by those who signed the constitution and the passed the bill of rights. But beware, this will force you to be more honest than your arguments are.
jharp,
Use derision to describe people who don’t share your views, if you must. But I am tired of being the word “delusional”. Get some new material, your posts are getting way too repetitious.
Yesterday, I received my Nevada CC permit. If we would all take seriously our moral duty to be properly armed and trained, crime will gradually go down. And that includes rifle use too.
Rapists don’t want to deal with an armed victim. It raises the chance in their mind that they get shot. It becomes a good deterrent.
It wasn’t the government which found that guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times. It was Dr. Gary Kleck. the government claims the number to be more like half Kleck’s figure. but I’ll trust Dr. Kleck over them. you were probably thrown by the page placing the wrong citation number on the fact.
skeeziks:
“Do you think you should be able to carry a gun into federal court?”
Do you think we should treat security on college campuses like they treat security at Federal Court? I’m sure the college kids would just LOVE that…..
Try going to the FBI’s website and check the UCR Reports, they have a very detailed breakdown on the exact details of every reported homicide in the USA, circumstances, relationships, weapons, etc. etc.
For those slacker trolls too lazy to bother Googling the “FBI” use this link; http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
As a twenty-five year veteran of a Detroit Metro Police Department I can tell you when Michigan finally passed our shall-issue law violent crime dropped 20%. Crooks aren’t stupid they avoid people that can defend themselves.
Wolves attack sheep for a reason, bears fight back.
Mike:
“Armed students on campus may sound like a good idea but in reality it is a recipe for disaster. Assume a crazed person invades campus and begins shooting people. Upon hearing gunshots, several armed students pull handguns from their backpacks and start looking for the shooter. So now we have a crazed shooter plus several armed students roaming through campus. Neither the armed students nor responding police officers would have any way of knowing who is the shooter and who is a Good Samaritan. The downside risk is too great.”
The scenario you describe above is EXACTLY what was forecast for the general public when the legalities of Concealed Carry were originally debated. Didn’t happen.
What makes you think that college campuses would somehow be different?
I’m with “Sapwolf” on the duty that comes with freedom, especially when it comes to arms. But then again “combat pistol” and long range centerfire silhouette shooting are my hobbies. There’s little that’s more satisfying than hear the “boom, tick-tock, tick-tock, clang” of 1000 meter marksmanship. Of course there is that “boom, tick-tock, tick-tock, splut” that dispatches prairie dogs at 800yds and keeps the bald eagles well fed through the winter
Safe use of firearms is less difficult
than safe use of an automobile, and
firearms are safer than automobiles,
in mechanical terms, yet the local
High school has a parking lot for
students larger than the campus;
Go figure.
Nota bene the County Sheriff’s stand;
Expect to hear state government officials
saying: Our legal experts tell us this
new Federal law is unconstitutional, and
we will not help enforce it.
Gun interests have successfully remodeled the Second Amendment into a marketing slogan. Now firearms flood the nation. Around 30,000 Americans die each year of gunfire, with several times that number being injured. That’s not a record to be proud of.
We need to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of thugs, scofflaws, the mentally unbalanced, and unsupervised children. And we need to provide more law enforcement. Our state legislatures, elected by the people, need to act on those needs.
Our Constitution’s preamble holds forth the promise of “domestic tranquility.” Cutting back on gunfire deaths would help.
Dan:
“jharp…….I’m sure you have a sign proudly displayed in your yard that states “This Home is Gun Free”, don’t you?”
No. I own several guns.
Graham:
jharp:
“With nothing, nada, zero, zilch, empty set, evidence to support it.”
Other than, of course, the FOOTNOTES! You lazy, lazy, lazy man.
**********************************************************************
So you idiots are sticking with the “Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense… …about 6,850 times a day”
Good God, I’d like to do business with you morons. I’d have your money in a week, just like Limbaugh and Beck are doing.
I have seen some stupid, but 6,850 times a day! God help us with these ignorant uneducated stupid stupid people.
To Curtis and Paul from Hamburg re no guns on campus:
Armed students on campus is like sex in a hot tub — both are better ideas in theory than in actual practice.
Seriously, how would you handle the scenario I described in my post (#15) where there is a shooter or multiple shooters on campus and several armed students out looking for him/them? What if one Good Samaritan shoots another Good Samaritan? And what are responding law enforcement officers supposed to do when they arrive on the scene in the middle of a running gun battle and they don’t know who is who?
Mike -
“Seriously, how would you handle the scenario I described in my post (#15) where there is a shooter or multiple shooters on campus and several armed students out looking for him/them? What if one Good Samaritan shoots another Good Samaritan? And what are responding law enforcement officers supposed to do when they arrive on the scene in the middle of a running gun battle and they don’t know who is who?”
I am serious. The EXACT SAME scenario was predicted when the possibility of legal Concealed Carry was debated years and years ago. How do you handle the scenario of a shooter IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC and several armed MEMBERS OF SOCIETY out looking for him/them? What if one Good Samaritan shoots another Good Samaritan? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Guess what? There have been MILLIONS of permits issued. Can you tell me how many OK Corrals we’ve had?
And again, I must ask: what is it about a College Campus that is somehow different from other public areas? And what other civil liberties do you think should be banned from college campuses?
Mike:
To Curtis and Paul from Hamburg re no guns on campus:
Seriously, how would you handle the scenario I described in my post (#15) where there is a shooter or multiple shooters on campus and several armed students out looking for him/them?
As an armed student, I would be just that. An armed student. Not a cop.
You don’t “go looking” for anyone. That turns it from “defense” to “offense”.
If he happens to enter a room I’m in, bad ju ju on him.
No different than if I am in a shopping mall. I don’t “go looking”. Mine is for defense.
That was one thing they taught us in our CHL class.
Carrying a firearm is for a last ditch, no options left encounter.
Mike; your false dilemma of either/or scenarios is fatally flawed. Most CCW holders are veterans who have been trained the same as law enforcement officers. It is incumbent on the holder of a CCW permit to practice, study the laws, anticipate scenarios, operate in an environment of code yellow which means not acting like a victim and being aware of one’s surroundings and resorting to lethal response only as a last resort. In addition, there is a period of time before authorities arrive when most killings take place. If gunfire is heard self-defense does not mean going out on the hunt. Protecting oneself and those in the immediate vicinity by establishing a perimeter and closing doors/staying away from windows, etc. is the proper way to handle the situation. Calling 911 should be delegated immediately to notify authorities who is where and who is armed with the number of people under protection. Most people who who would just as soon wet their pants and panic as take appropriate action need to be controlled for the good of themselves and others. Ask among the crowd who is armed and if there is one they can cover an assigned area.
‘running gun battle’ is a no win situation. Usually better to let the bad guy come to you. You don’t sound like someone who has much experience outside of watching 24 on the television regarding crimes involving guns. Set up your own kill zone and cover it as best you can. My bet is that you would put more people in jeopardy by your lack of training and naivte than the bad guy. You remind me of the character in Die Hard who tries to negotiate with the killer. We know how that worked out.
Simple solution, CSU alums, contact your university and tell them they will not get so much as one more thin dime from you until they fire any professor at CSU who thinks he or she is above the will of the people of Colorado and the purpose of the United States Constitution, as amended.
Curtis M:
“And again, I must ask: what is it about a College Campus that is somehow different from other public areas?”
Ummm. Could it be that college campuses are private property?
Good God you people are stupid.
“jharp” – check this link out:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm
It seems 2.5 million is the number reached by many people. Moreover, 2.5 million divided by 365 (the number of days in a year)is right at 6850. I tend to believe that if we look at it from day to day it will not be 6850 a day, every day, but 3,000 uses on one day and perhaps 10,700 on the next, and so on. I don’t believe anyone is arguing for 6850 literal uses every day as much as 2.5 million uses a year(which works out 6850 via hard math).
39. jharp:
Curtis M:
“And again, I must ask: what is it about a College Campus that is somehow different from other public areas?”
Ummm. Could it be that college campuses are private property?
Good God you people are stupid.
——————————————————————
A state university is not private. It is state owned. State owned means public.
Stupid…….
Phranc:
“A state university is not private. It is state owned. State owned means public.”
*************************************************************************
A state university is private property you fool. Ask John Ziegler. They can throw your ass off the property if they so choose. And they can ban carrying weapons if they choose.
Why do you hate private property owners rights to do with their property as they see fit. Commie.
Phranc:
From your link.
“Though Dr. Kleck stresses that the results of the survey are preliminary and subject to future revision”
“Dr. Kleck will first present his survey results at an upcoming meeting of the American Society of Criminology, but he agreed to discuss his preliminary analysis, even though it is uncustomary to do so in advance of complete peer review”
God you people are stupid. 6,850 times day? Every day? Sweet Jesus we are doomed with idiots like you out there.
Phranc:
39. jharp:
Curtis M:
“And again, I must ask: what is it about a College Campus that is somehow different from other public areas?”
Ummm. Could it be that college campuses are private property?
Good God you people are stupid.
——————————————————————
A state university is not private. It is state owned. State owned means public.
Stupid…….
****************************************************************************
State Universities are private property you fool.
No matter where I am, if I hear gun fire, the first thing I am going to do is hit the floor and/or find cover somewhere. Situation assessment is next and finally, protect my life and the people around me. I am not qualified to “go hunting” and it is completely outside of my legal responsibilities as a CCW holder. Note also, you have to be 21 to own a hand gun and get a CCW. Any student that might have a CCW will probably be a senior, grad student, or possibly an ex-military type finally going to school. These people are usually more grown up and responsible than the run of the mill freshman.
The responsibility of concealed carry is huge and when I am carrying (almost all the time) it is always in my mind that a wrong decision by me could have dire consequences that could ruin my life. I AM PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PROJECTILES THAT LEAVE MY BARREL AND ANY DAMAGE THAT MIGHT OCCUR. And that responsibility is quite sobering.
jharp, you really need to quit calling others stupid and a fool, at least until you edjumacate yourself.
A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government, as opposed to private universities.
Public property is property which is jointly owned by a whole community of individuals or by a non-communistic, dictatorial, or totalitarian government, as opposed to private property, which is owned exclusively by an individual or individuals jointly that do not constitute the whole community.
In the modern representative democracy, “public property” is synonymous to state property, which is said to be owned by the people as a commons.
Most public property is accessible to the general public, such as zoos, libraries, schools, and parks; some is reserved for restricted use, such as military bases and research laboratories.
States generally charge higher tuition to out-of-state students, a practice which the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional because the state is acting as a market participant providing a service, rather than protecting a fundamental right. The higher fees are based on the theory that students from the state, or much more often their parents, have contributed to subsidizing the university by paying state taxes, while of out-of-state students and their parents have not.
Jeez, google could be your friend.
To #3.
3. Matthew: It’s also worth nothing that they were talking about the part of that sentence that gun-activists seem to think not relevant to the implementation of the amendment.
Everyone needs to read this:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ndAmendmentdefined.html
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
For the trolls, to shut you up about the “militia Clause”,
and for everyone else to whap the trolls upside the head with.
Oh, btw, the “expert”?
Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers’ Humanities Award.
“July 26, 1991
“Dear Professor Copperud:
“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘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.’
“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
“Sincerely,
“J. Neil Schulman”
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I’ve inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying “militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Ed. Note: Which is the very same definition used by a very respected Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; "Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers." - John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”
Rick:
State Universities are private property.
It’s that simple.
And you are stupid to post facts that are irrelevant to the discussion.
No-Brainer 101: Criminals DO NOT obey gun control laws. Gun control laws create environments where criminals feel more secure. Gun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
jharp, you have some serious deficiencies in understanding your native tongue. “State Universities are private property.”!? You don’t see the logic disconnect in that statement?
You clearly can’t comprehend Rick’s response if you think his post is irrelevant to your assertion (he’s not necessarily discussing the post, just re-butting your absurd claim ((unsupported, by the way)) ).
Insulting someone else’s intelligence is no indicator of your superior intelligence. Quite the conrary, many would say.
And, no, you don’t own any firearms!
jharp -
“State Universities are private property.
It’s that simple.”
Nice diversion jharp.
Can a State University curtail Freedom of Speach or censure the campus newspaper? Can a State University require some form of religious instruction? Can a State University curtail OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS based purely on whether or not jharp thinks they are on private property or do you just want to be able to pick and chose which rights are violated?
And what is it about the ‘OK Corral’ scenario that makes you think that it is more applicable to college campuses? We don’t see that scenario played out in shopping malls (private property)or the workplace (private property). No, what we DO see is ‘gun free zones’ established which have ZERO deterence to inviduals seeking to commit murder.
Why does anybody bother replying to that waste of time known as jharp?
Has anything he has ever posted been of value?
If you eliminate all of his sentences that have an insult in them (the ones he wrote, not the cut-n-paste stuff) he has posted nothing in years .
He is a useless troll.
Please stop feeding him.
I was scanning and reading the comments and noticed mention of the “militia clause” and the meaning of a “well-regulated militia.” I’ll approach this from the least important aspect to the most important.
The term “well-regulated militia” does not refer to “regulation” as we understand it. It is a military term and means “trained.” The clause can be read “a well-trained militia.” (Just as Bach’s “Well-tempered klavier” didn’t mean that the instrument was hardened or well-behaved, as we moderns might interpret the word. It meant it was “tuned” according to a particular standard.)
The US Senate maintains an official version of the Constitution. It can be found in any law library. (It has been many years, so I can’t cite the exact title of the book in which it appears, but I have verified this fact personally and encourage others to do so.) In the official, Senate version of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment reads like this:
“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.”
This form is as it was proposed. What is different about it? Look at its construction, there is only one comma. Now look at the structure of the usual form of the amendment – it has no independent clause! This version not only has an independent clause (in other words, it is a properly-constructed sentence, as you would expect from the founders), the independent and dependent clauses accurately reflect the reality being expressed by the authors. Just as the “free State” depends upon the “well-regulated Miliia,” so too is the militia dependent upon the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” because the militia IS the people under arms. Brilliant, just brilliant. I am constantly amazed at the briliance of the founders.
Now, do this experiment. Strike the dependent clause. What you have left is a complete sentence, that grammatically and for its lawful effectiveness does not require the dependent clause!
The 2.5 million is the number of defensive gun uses identified by professors Kleck & Gertz in their 1995 study. The anti gun forces for years have attempted to dicredit them, and quickly put forth their own study, published in 1997. In fact, the antis never have been able to do anything about Kleck & Gertz’s 1995 study than complain about the sample size.
Go to http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf which is the “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig from 1997.
This is a study that creates some problems for the gun banners in that it doesn’t debunk the standard of Professor Kleck & Gertz’s 1995 study identifying 2.5 million DGU’s annually, but still admits they occur on page 10:
The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) = 165,000 dgu’s (adjusted for 2008 population) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz’s criteria) = 3 million dgu’s per year.
Ludwig & Cook have also created a failure in their logic in:
The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
Of course a respondent who replied they were not a victim because they had defended themselves by showing their weapon, thereby preventing the physical attack from occurring, that data was not considered by Ludwig & Cook., hence their survey value for DGU’s was affected and made artificially low.
Now the problems you have is that:
165,000 is not insignificant and is agreed upon by your anti gun professors of whom have been contracted to perform multiple studies for the anti gun organizations.
The next problem is that in ALL cases where such extremes of differing opinions occur, the actual number of incidents usually falls in the middle ground.
Oh geez, thats around the 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year that the Clinton Adminsitration admitted occured on average in 1997, and also correlates to the study Ludwig & Cooke performed before they used their false logic to eliminate data falsely. After all, if a person used their gun to prevent an attack and were not physically attacked, that shouldnt be counted in the survey at all.
Nor does the FBI UCR database and the hospital databases or the multiple police studies support the following (sarcasm).
2008 FBI UCR 381,000 violent crimes involving a firearm, 9,484 murders, 70,000 woundings, only 8-15% of the time are shots fired and the police, the so called experts only hit their target 25% of the time. Oh dont forget that the USDOJ identifies in their Victimization report that on average 5.2 million violent crimes werent reported.
Just working off the numbers from government sources, murders by firearm constitute approximatly 11.9% (9,484/79,484) of all reported injuries (not including suicide) and injuries are 25% of the 8% shots fired, 4 times 79,484 = 317,936 violent crimes involving a firearm. Oh darn, that isnt that much different than what the GOVERNMENT identifies as the number of violent crimes reported with a firearm.
Then again, since the Chicago police identified in the 1990′s that 60-76% of their shootings involved where both shooter and injured were involved in criminal activity at the time of the shooting has no bearing right. After all, how many criminals who are slightly injured never go to a hospital, ROTFLMFAO, none based on the antis wishes. Talk to my nephew, an ER doctor in a questionable neighborhood who has so many “unreported bullet wounds showing up in x-rays”, prove otherwise. Something about all gun shot wounds are reported when treated, such an amazing coincidence.
Should we continue the data beating, or do you wish to be reminded that your doctor is 1,500 times more likely to harm you than a person with a concealed carry license on campus?
No lets go to http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ start counting the 55 plus DGU from the beginning of December 2009. Lets then go to the multiple sites besides the one presented showing similar stories, all through the US. The mainstream media doesnt like to show such evidence as it destroys what little credibility they have on the issue they promote that “self defensive gun uses dont work”, when in fact they do.
“What makes you think that college campuses would somehow be different?”
Real life doesn’t feature weekend binge drinking parties and general drug consumption. College students are not adults as much as you might want to beleive it, so you feel comfortable having them carry.
Red Fred,
Zero shootings by people with concealed carry permits on that campus in nearly seven years. The evidence does not support your concern.
Rick
Then why did they insert the clause at all?
“Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]”
“[Copperud:] Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.”
Well, he didn’t do himself any favors with that, now did he? Your sentence is constructed to include a stronger causal connection between the right and its operation on the subject of the first clause (the electorate), presumably so you can use your man to show it’s not important. Nice try.
Note that the amendment does not say “A well-ARMED militia, being essential…”, it says “a well REGULATED militia” – so your example with books is actually not as similar as you think. I’m astounded that your learned friend didn’t notice that – it’s slightly important to the meaning of your sentence, because it implies a stronger causal relationship than one in the amendment. If it’s not important, then why not just leave it alone? What if your example said:
“A well-REGULATED electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Does that not imply the ability of the government to regulate the electorate? If not, why mention it?
If the purpose of ensuring that the right to bear arms is not infringed is to ensure a militia (which has nothing at all to do with a professional army, which is inherently GIVEN that right by the conditions of their employment – otherwise it would be a pretty useless army – so, again, why mention it at all unless the framers meant the citizen soldier), then the right to regulate that militia is also ensured by that amendment (it’s essential to a free state, right?).
So the way I see it, if you own a gun then the government should have the right to call you up for military service. Otherwise you’re not part of a well-regulated militia at all.
See, the problem you have is in thinking the first clause restricts the second clause. I don’t think it doesn’t. But it SHOULD given the government the power to regulate the people who exercise the second clause, given the essential nature of the right they’re exercising. You can keep and bear arms all you like. But if you do, you are part of a militia, so you should be well-regulated.
In any case, you don’t interpret the second amendment by the letter anyway. Nobody does. Can I buy and keep heavy artillery? Mortars? Guided munitions with high explosive warheads? They are all arms. Some of them didn’t exist when the amendment was written – but that’s just tough, if you want to apply the law to its letter.
And I’m still waiting for a link to that FBI report. I’m sure you’ve all got it on your hotlinks – shouldn’t take but a moment.
“The next problem is that in ALL cases where such extremes of differing opinions occur, the actual number of incidents usually falls in the middle ground.”
So there were about 600,000 extra deaths in iraq between 2003 and 2007?
That’s what you just said. IBC at the extreme low end with 100,000 and about 1.2 million at the high end from ORB. Answer falls “in the middle ground”.
And yes, I did notice that you weaseled “ALL cases” with “usually”. Proceed to wiggle … now.
Being serious for a moment – I really don’t care. I don’t live in the US. I live somewhere that doesn’t see the right to own an assault rifle as god-given, and where it’s consequently not credible for people to claim that they need to carry weapons to defend themselves. I could buy a gun if I wanted one (a handgun or a rifle – no problem), but the idea of needing it for self-defense is so absurd I couldn’t bring myself to do it without dying of laughter. It’s just a liability that I would have to keep secure – it’s not worth it.
The US might as well hand out guns because the place is clearly already awash in them. That horse has bolted. Had it not, then it might still be possible to keep gun ownership laws in the realms of the sensible. But you didn’t. Ah well, your problem. Arm yourself to the teeth. Just keep it within your own borders and we’ll all be happy.
I believe that there was an incident at a college not that long ago that involved 2 students with concealed carry (or they retrieved pistols from their vehicles) who subdued and stopped a shooter on campus. The CC part was not reported in the lamestream press.
CC laws have resulted in crime reduction in every state they are implemented, especially violent crime. YOur municipalities with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest violent crime rates. Look it up.
“Real life doesn’t feature weekend binge drinking parties and general drug consumption.”
It doesn’t? Damn, there goes my weekend…….8^)
From a 2004 report!
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Sometimes the mere production of a firearm is all it takes to stop a crime and the likelihood of this getting reported is remote. Unless a firearm is actually used to stop a crime and there is an investigation it will not be reported as a statistic.
The good news about this is the Sheriff’s reaction. If he’s not going to enforce it then I bet the students will realize they don’t have to abide by it.
58. Matthew: said
“And I’m still waiting for a link to that FBI report. I’m sure you’ve all got it on your hotlinks – shouldn’t take but a moment.”
Search it, tool. There’s more than enough info to do so. And if you’re too unlearned or lazy to use google or some other search engine to research background on subjects you seem determined to opine on, don’t be surprised that your opinion then comes off as ill-informed at best.
BTW: your posts 57 and 59 don’t sync very well. I post 57 you write as would an American citizen in the states concenring what is allowed you, but claim in 59 that you do not live in or under US laws.
Full of BS.
So who is doing the weaseling now, eh Matthew? The links are self evident and apparently you know how to Google, so go look as failure to do so just shows the narrow mindedness of people who dont willingly wish to see both sides of the TRUTH. If after you put all the facts side by side and make the same decision, I have no problem with that. Still doesnt give you or the government the right to dictate how I can or cannot use the best defensive tool available to defend myself and family, and dude, that has happened four times in my life. Of course you can prove without any doubt, that the 6’2″ 300+ lb burglar who we found out afterwards had a history of violent assaults wouldnt have harmed my 5’1″ 100lb mother in any way, right Matthew? Where were the police and govenrment, they werent there to protect her, but I was. Never had to fire a shot, never involved in a criminal activity, but something about that big hand cannon communicated clearly to the attempted burglar. Nothing was reported to the police as since only a trespass violation occurred, there would be no teeth to the prosecution as under then state law, to follow or detain the burglar would have opened we the victim up to prosecution. Just like in England where anyone defending themselves are prosecuted as only the government has the experience and right to do so. Again all after the fact eh Matthew? As noted in the earlier blog, the evidence is overwhelming, and other links showing this to actually happen, prove otherwise Matthew! Oh darn, you havent proven anything, sorry to wax hypothetical fanatasy that you could even do so………….
But to see ALL those facts, is usually a traumatic experience destroying the mythical fantasy world so many anti gunners build up in their minds, hence the vitriol, name calling and attempts at sarcasm on the antis part oh so often.
Hey Matthew, the best police response time has been documented at four minutes, and the US Supreme Court has ruled 10 times that the government is not liable to protect the individual citizen. Yet you by your position infer they are capable and responsible every single time? So could you please use your astounding influence to force the US governemnt to build up the police force to sufficient numbers so that there is a police officer within shouting distance of every single citizen?
This issue is about concealed carry, not assault weapons Matthew. There ya go trying to weasel the discussion in another direction, pathetic. Maybe we should look at the FBI UCR database again where the before, during or after data shows that the % of semi auto rifles was 1.6%. No evidence the ban solved or prevented anything. Besides that term for a semi-auto rifle was coined by a politician and not the military. True assault weapons are real military hardware Matthew, but since I qualified on over 26 different weapon systems in my military carreer, I have no credibility to remind you of that fact eh?
Next, go review the Heller decision as there is ample sources to the actual and complete pdf file of the issue of well regulated. All supported by the supporting documentation that formed the BOR and the consitution. That being the drafts of the BOR Karpele Museum California on line. The English Bill of Rights, John Lockes treatise, The Virginia Bill of right, the Federalist papers, and the congressional writings from 1774-1789. You will note in the ruling it DIRECTLY addresses what you refuse to accept, thats too bad to be proven wrong eh Matthew? Uh do you know how to read much less google?
You have done nothing to preclude that such disparaging numbers usually end up in the middle when I noted the reasoning, showed where the data and studies came from or is the governments own admission not sufficient? After all in your position the government is infallable or is that blatant hypocrisy showing?
As to your attempted diversionary question, a standard tactic of radical activists as coached by the noted socialist Saul Alinsky, I inferred to the dispute between Professor Kleck & Gertz, and the rabidly anti gun Lugwig & Cook. The antis admittd to the numbers presented and couldnt refute them, so they used flawed logic, prove otherwise and dude, your opinion doesnt prove otherwise. Of course you are a scholastically noted law professor with a doctorate in statistical methodology that can with logic prove otherwise? Nope, you arent so either address that particular issue between the data used and the logic as noted or go fly a kite!
As for the militia, if you even read the militia rules and by-laws that every single state has and they do as you will find NO laws de-activating the citizen militias, then you would see within that document that the ability of the government to call up the militia is THERE. But again we know how you cant read anything unless it is spoonfed to you by the all knowing and infallable guberment eh Matthew?
Wow, England, a country that banned firearm possession completely in 1997. Per the Home Office database, they had 445k violent crimes closed. Whats that you say, yep closed as they dont count those that havent been closed. Makes their data look better so as not to scare away the massive tourist trade they have. Yeah that is a 820 per 100,000 people rate (56 million pop). In 2008 they had 1.4 million closed cases or 2,033 per 100k violent crime rate w 60 mill pop. Yeah murders didnt decrease, gun crimes didnt decrease yet we see how ineffective gun control is at reducing violent crime in the UK.
But hey the US went from 611 violent crime reported per 100k in 1997 (286 mill pop) to 465 per 100k in 2008 (304 mill pop) all with more relaxed gun laws and more concealed carry. Based on Matthews logic, there should have been a maintaining of the violence rates, but it didnt. Hmmm, maybe guns arent the root cause of violence afterall eh Matthew?
AMazing how that coincedental result is evident in Australia, Canada or our favorite socialist paradise Mexico where the drug cartels run rampant buying and stealing military hardware. All their violent crime rates, murders and gun crimes didnt decrease or stayed the same, prove otherwise. Oh sorry, had a fantasy flashback that people like you Matthew actually could prove otherwise.
Facts is as you noted Matthew, you are on outsider troll who has used nothing but your own fantastical illogic to attempt to counter the facts or do you want to come back for more of a beating.
Concealed means concealed! ‘Nuff said.
The county police indicate they would not enforce the ban – that’s good. However, the University could have sanctions up to and including expulsion. This could be devastating to a student and damage the rest of his/her life.
Not long ago, a shooter open fired in two Denver area churches. Six were shot, two innocents died. There were a couple of people with CC permits at one church who took the shooter out (without hitting anyone else) – and long before the police got there. They saved a lot of lives. A crazed shooter can hurt/kill a lot of people in just a couple of minutes.
The fact is that State Universities are neither truly public nor truly private, but rather a quasi-public entity which is treated as public or private property depending on what happens to be convenient at the time. I have a major problem with this setup, even as I attend a State University (out of state, by the way). Privatization is the way to go to prevent such insanity.
Commuter:
“Search it, tool. There’s more than enough info to do so. And if you’re too unlearned or lazy to use google or some other search engine”
I don’t believe that the report exists. Or rather there IS a report, but it wasn’t from the FBI. So like I said, just one link and you’ve proven me wrong. And no stalling please – give us the page number so we can all see the statistic without trawling.
“to research background on subjects you seem determined to opine on, don’t be surprised that your opinion then comes off as ill-informed at best”
And if you can’t show me that report, you’re not looking so sharp yourself.
“BTW: your posts 57 and 59 don’t sync very well”
You’re thinking too hard.
Texan:
“It’s worth noting that the ban does not carry the force of law.”
But it probably will. Other universities and colleges in colorado already have a weapon ban, and at least one legal challenge has failed – i.e. one university’s ban has already been upheld by the courts.
So maybe the sheriff will find his position changing with time.
Ever notice how most of the mass shootings occur in gun-free zones? As a psychopathic killer, it must be comforting to know that your victims aren’t going to shoot back.
I believe that we shouldn’t have gun-free zones to begin with. According to one study, a CCW permit holder is 300 times LESS likely to commit a gun-related crime than the average non-CCW holder. If people and organizations are going to create gun-free zones anyway, I propose that we create a law holding these people or organizations legally responsible for the safety of everyone within the gun-free zone they have created. If you deny someone the right to carry a gun, and they are attacked and injured or killed in such a way that they might have been able to defend themselves by the use of a firearm, then you (as well as the assailant) should be held responsible and made to pay restitution.
Such a law might get people to think twice about creating “gun-free” zones.
“You’re thinking too hard.”
In the same way the marching moron crowd does, many outwardly reasonable progressives like yourself that show up on PJM tend to toss your comments into almost every thread simply to take the opposing view. You haven’t the background to sustain an argument on each and every topic – who would? – but that doesn’t seem to stop you. The common problem with that sort of progressive poster here – and it’s common whether outwardly reasonable or not – is the need to somehow establish added credibility on a wide range of topics. So the disparate claims about background start coming out. By disparate, I mean that in one thread one manufactured claim about background is made, and in another, an entirely one suited to another topic at hand. Catches up eventually.
In this thread, you’ve slipped up by taking on the mantle of a concerned citizen and posting in that manner, then made the mistake of claiming that you aren’t even a US citizen.
Hard to take you seriously.
I am from Arizona and support concealed laws, however, I draw the line at educational institutes. The reason being is that whether you are licensed or not, you will carry. That is why I support laws that allow you to carry a sidearm. We still have those laws here in AZ, but you cannot wear one at school. That is the libtards fault. They blame the gun, not the indigint for the problem.
Me, I blame Prometheus for giving us fire. That is what caused all this technological evolution.
Commuter:
“… many outwardly reasonable progressives like yourself that show up on PJM tend to toss your comments into almost every thread simply to take the opposing view”
Actually I don’t post in many threads at all, as a fraction of the ones that are available. Most I just don’t care about, some I actually agree with. Usually I have a skim and see if the author has written something seriously daft then point it out. Like claiming that the FBI has published statistics that back up the author’s position when it (*ahem*) hasn’t.
“is the need to somehow establish added credibility on a wide range of topics”
I don’t care if I have credibility or not. I shouldn’t have to. If I post something that’s correct or reasonable, then what you think of me isn’t relevant. Likewise if I post something that’s wrong.
“I mean that in one thread one manufactured claim about background is made”
Really? What have I claimed about my background that you reckon has been manufactured? I assume you have examples.
“and in another, an entirely one suited to another topic at hand. Catches up eventually”
You’re imagining it, really.
“Hard to take you seriously”
Here’s an idea. Make me look REALLY foolish and post a link to that FBI report. I’ve now said outright that I don’t believe it exists. That’s a big claim, and it should be pretty easy to refute if I’m wrong. I’m still waiting.
It’s gone very quiet.
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
This link and table identifies that there were over 21,000,000 million crimes in the US, of which only 1.4 million violent crimes were officially reported to police and another 4.7 million unreported violent crime s as per the USDOJ Victimization report.
See Table 1. Criminal victimization, numbers, rates, and percent change,by type of crime, 2007 and 2008
Number of victimizations Ratesa Percent change
This USDOJ data does not include murders and a few other notable violent crimes already documented in the FBI UCR reports in its count ~Not applicable.
*Difference is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
aVictimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older for violent crime or
per 1,000 households for property crime.
bPercent change calculated based on unrounded estimates.
cExcludes murder because the NCVS is based on interviews with victims and
therefore cannot measure murder.
dIncludes pocket picking, completed purse snatching, and attempted purse
snatching.
So knowing that the Kleck & Gertz study couldnt be refuted by the anti’s, and the Clinton Administration even agreed that 1.5 million dgu’s occur on average, will be sitting here waiting on a logic arguement by Matthew & Jharp as to the statistical/mathematical in-probability that 1.5 million DGU’s occur. After all, when one compares those crimes reported to police, can you provide a logic alternative that the percentage of crimes, including the percentage of times a firearm is used isnt in paralell for those not reported, especially just brandishing of the weapon? This should be very interesting.
Especially as there are what 74,000 cities in the US so roughly .05 of a DGU occurs in a city per day or if 2.5 million DGU’s occur that means approximately .1 DGU’s occur per day per city. Man oh man just looking at the reality of what 1.5 million DGU’s and how many average per day per city, would still love to hear the logic as to why that is not possible?