Knife Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

Give up the logic defense smh. If it hasn’t been made clear in 7 pages, it won’t now. If he didn’t pick it up when you drew the form describing push’s belief in maxim Z, he won’t get it now. That was quite clear.

I still think you’re mistaken about some of your stated positions here. But I don’t care enough to dig up through this mess. At the very outset this thread conflated the “ought to/not” with the “can/does” aspects of the campus issue. We’ve been switching between the two for a while now.

322

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Also, more importantly, I think it’s pretty obviously the university’s call. If the university wants to allow it, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too.[/quote]

To me those two things are very separate issues. “University’s call” and “college kids are too irresponsible to carry” are separate. They may inform one another at a distant level, but the question of authority granted to a University is not the same as saying “college kids are too irresponsible for me to feel comfortable letting them carry on campus”, and you have maintained positions on both. I am responding to your opinion of irresponsibility. I have no care to respond to the question of authority, because that carries an additional two factors: CAN the University do such a thing as limit carry (or rather is the question uncontroversial), and SHOULD it do so (the question of “ought”)

323

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Comparing military conscripts to the average American college student is almost as erroneous as the Schindler’s List picture you posted earlier.[/quote]

What is the difference between a conscripted 18 year old, and an un-conscripted one?[/quote]

The differences between a military base and a college campus–and the people who populate each-- are so many and so drastic that it really isn’t worth listing them. If I recall correctly, you went to college? I believe you know the answer to this question very well.

Setting philosophy and principle aside here, anybody who has spent a substantial amount of time at a university within the past decade knows just what the American college student is like.[/quote]

In all seriousness smh, I would like to ask how many people you are around on a daily basis that are enlisted in the army. Not a few times a month, I mean a daiily basis, or very close to it. I know this post is from a while ago and I haven’t caught up with the thread (bunch of stuff from people I wanted to reply to, but too busy), but… i believe you have an erroneously high view of our enlisted corp’s responsibility with comparison to college kids.

I am around literally hundreds of active duty enlisted men at least half my week for the past 4 years living in a college town with a very large base nearby. Almost half my best friends are officers or otherwise related to military life. I have seen shit from the low enlisted ranks that beats the everliving fuck out of college kids in terms of stupidity, drunkenness, pussy chasing, everything. If anything, I would say there is absolutely ZERO difference in maturity level. I have more problems with them when drunk by a factor of about 5.

Your argument rests on very flawed assumptions in my mind. We have over 20,000 soldiers about 15 minutes away, and we have 20,000+ students in this town. I see no difference whatsoever.[/quote]

I lived just outside Rota in Spain for a while as a kid.

But don’t get me wrong, I know a good number of enlisted scumbags. In fact, most of the kids who joined out of my HS were real trash growing up.

But they are A] kept in serious check by their superiors and B] trained in firearm handling/safety.

I simply don’t see college kids handling the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun within the college setting in anything like an acceptable manner. Apparently that makes me basically a Nazi, but oh well.[/quote]

Nobody does anything with responsibility until it is thrust upon them. You don’t function as an adult until you’re given the consequences for facing adult action–probably unclear but we all know guys who are 35 and live with mom and dad…or on their dime with allowances…or something similar. Removing the chance to display responsibility is not the same as illustrating the lack of adulthood. There is the additional complication that usmc said: having been a veteran, with said training, why should he not be able to carry on campus?

All this is beside my main point however. I work and live around these people and I do not see any difference in the immaturity levels when off base. The only place senior NCO’s and officers can control their enlisted men is on base. Otherwise they’re away from authority and in general population. Additionally and importantly, the actual training needed to safely operate a gun is practically nil. It takes awareness is all. Now accurately hitting what you aim for is another matter, but the training needed to be “safe” with a weapon is not strenuous training at all. I know 12 year olds that have the training. They go hunting all the time with relatives and they hit what they aim at, for the most part. By your position they are more capable of adult action than college students, and they have vastly more unformed mental capabilities at that age than college. That doesn’t hold water. It’s not a matter of capability.

If you’ve never seen a hammered soldier holding up his weapon, you haven’t been around a lot of them. Hell, I have 6-7 pics on my phone of buddies in the forces drinking in florida with guns in their other hand, grinning like retards. You ever been drinking and shooting targets? It’s like a tailgate only with the possibility of large caliber action. I have seen incidents of “herd action” among low enlisted ranks that easily rival the worst Greek life has to offer.

324

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I still think you’re mistaken about some of your stated positions here. But I don’t care enough to dig up through this mess. At the very outset this thread conflated the “ought to/not” with the “can/does” aspects of the campus issue. We’ve been switching between the two for a while now.[/quote]

This is true. Good point.

I know that they can, and I think that they should.

325

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Comparing military conscripts to the average American college student is almost as erroneous as the Schindler’s List picture you posted earlier.[/quote]

What is the difference between a conscripted 18 year old, and an un-conscripted one?[/quote]

The differences between a military base and a college campus–and the people who populate each-- are so many and so drastic that it really isn’t worth listing them. If I recall correctly, you went to college? I believe you know the answer to this question very well.

Setting philosophy and principle aside here, anybody who has spent a substantial amount of time at a university within the past decade knows just what the American college student is like.[/quote]

In all seriousness smh, I would like to ask how many people you are around on a daily basis that are enlisted in the army. Not a few times a month, I mean a daiily basis, or very close to it. I know this post is from a while ago and I haven’t caught up with the thread (bunch of stuff from people I wanted to reply to, but too busy), but… i believe you have an erroneously high view of our enlisted corp’s responsibility with comparison to college kids.

I am around literally hundreds of active duty enlisted men at least half my week for the past 4 years living in a college town with a very large base nearby. Almost half my best friends are officers or otherwise related to military life. I have seen shit from the low enlisted ranks that beats the everliving fuck out of college kids in terms of stupidity, drunkenness, pussy chasing, everything. If anything, I would say there is absolutely ZERO difference in maturity level. I have more problems with them when drunk by a factor of about 5.

Your argument rests on very flawed assumptions in my mind. We have over 20,000 soldiers about 15 minutes away, and we have 20,000+ students in this town. I see no difference whatsoever.[/quote]

I lived just outside Rota in Spain for a while as a kid.

But don’t get me wrong, I know a good number of enlisted scumbags. In fact, most of the kids who joined out of my HS were real trash growing up.

But they are A] kept in serious check by their superiors and B] trained in firearm handling/safety.

I simply don’t see college kids handling the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun within the college setting in anything like an acceptable manner. Apparently that makes me basically a Nazi, but oh well.[/quote]

Nobody does anything with responsibility until it is thrust upon them. You don’t function as an adult until you’re given the consequences for facing adult action–probably unclear but we all know guys who are 35 and live with mom and dad…or on their dime with allowances…or something similar. Removing the chance to display responsibility is not the same as illustrating the lack of adulthood. There is the additional complication that usmc said: having been a veteran, with said training, why should he not be able to carry on campus?

All this is beside my main point however. I work and live around these people and I do not see any difference in the immaturity levels when off base. The only place senior NCO’s and officers can control their enlisted men is on base. Otherwise they’re away from authority and in general population. Additionally and importantly, the actual training needed to safely operate a gun is practically nil. It takes awareness is all. Now accurately hitting what you aim for is another matter, but the training needed to be “safe” with a weapon is not strenuous training at all. I know 12 year olds that have the training. They go hunting all the time with relatives and they hit what they aim at, for the most part. By your position they are more capable of adult action than college students, and they have vastly more unformed mental capabilities at that age than college. That doesn’t hold water. It’s not a matter of capability.

If you’ve never seen a hammered soldier holding up his weapon, you haven’t been around a lot of them. Hell, I have 6-7 pics on my phone of buddies in the forces drinking in florida with guns in their other hand, grinning like retards. You ever been drinking and shooting targets? It’s like a tailgate only with the possibility of large caliber action. I have seen incidents of “herd action” among low enlisted ranks that easily rival the worst Greek life has to offer. [/quote]

There are tangible ways to measure this. How many kids in the armed forces drink themselves to death every year? More than 1800 college kids die every year from alcohol-related injuries or poisoning. Two kids died at my school while I was a student.

Also, bear in mind that while I do believe college kids to be more irresponsible than their enlisted counterparts, that is not the real point of my argument.

My argument–actually, it’s an opinion–is that college kids are simply not responsible adults, and that the people who run colleges understand this well enough to have wisely decided not to let them bring guns into campus.

Your opinion differs. I am certain that neither of us will convince the other to relent and switch sides.

327

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, I’m getting the impression that it’s just the college students whom you have concerns with carrying, right?

You don’t have a problem with you or me carrying on the campus of Montana State or UMass, correct? In fact, you would support my right and yours to carry there, I believe.

Or do you believe the bad apple spoils the barrel and that despite the fact that I’m not a student at UMass I still can’t carry there?

Discount your “Universities have the right to do whatever they want in that regard” and focus on your “lack of responsibility” argument for the time being.[/quote]

We’re talking about “ought” now?

I honestly have to think about it. On first glance, I don’t have a problem with you or I carrying there, but I might have a problem with telling a bunch people that they can’t be armed (the students/faculty) and yet will be surrounded by people who are going to be legally armed.

I think if one citizen is going to be permitted to carry, everybody is going to have to. Or not. I honestly don’t have a fully formed opinion on the matter.

329

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, I’m getting the impression that it’s just the college students whom you have concerns with carrying, right?

You don’t have a problem with you or me carrying on the campus of Montana State or UMass, correct? In fact, you would support my right and yours to carry there, I believe.

Or do you believe the bad apple spoils the barrel and that despite the fact that I’m not a student at UMass I still can’t carry there?

Discount your “Universities have the right to do whatever they want in that regard” and focus on your “lack of responsibility” argument for the time being.[/quote]

We’re talking about “ought” now?

I honestly have to think about it. On first glance, I don’t have a problem with you or I carrying there, but I might have a problem with telling a bunch people that they can’t be armed (the students/faculty) and yet will be surrounded by people who are going to be legally armed.

I think if one citizen is going to be permitted to carry, everybody is going to have to. Or not. I honestly don’t have a fully formed opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Because here’s the deal: even though students make up the majority on a typical campus there are still ample amounts of faculty, administrators, contractors, parents, service personnel, etc., who make up the population of a college campus. By inference, I recognize that you don’t feel these people are, as a group, made up of silly, irresponsible people incapable of proper gun handling – not to mention the segment of college students who are not age 18 - 22 of which the number is substantial.

So the bottom line for you is since X% of the college campus is 18 - 22 years of age and typically X% of that number is irresponsible EVERYBODY loses their basic, fundamental, God-given, natural right to most effectively defend themselves?

I don’t envy someone who has to promote and defend that position. It’s an intellectual Swiss cheese mess of convoluted thinking. But you have at it, buddy.[/quote]

None of those employees have a right to bring guns to work if their employer tells them that they can’t. You keep insisting on rights that don’t exist.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, I’m getting the impression that it’s just the college students whom you have concerns with carrying, right?

You don’t have a problem with you or me carrying on the campus of Montana State or UMass, correct? In fact, you would support my right and yours to carry there, I believe.

Or do you believe the bad apple spoils the barrel and that despite the fact that I’m not a student at UMass I still can’t carry there?

Discount your “Universities have the right to do whatever they want in that regard” and focus on your “lack of responsibility” argument for the time being.[/quote]

We’re talking about “ought” now?

I honestly have to think about it. On first glance, I don’t have a problem with you or I carrying there, but I might have a problem with telling a bunch people that they can’t be armed (the students/faculty) and yet will be surrounded by people who are going to be legally armed.

I think if one citizen is going to be permitted to carry, everybody is going to have to. Or not. I honestly don’t have a fully formed opinion on the matter.[/quote]

Because here’s the deal: even though students make up the majority on a typical campus there are still ample amounts of faculty, administrators, contractors, parents, service personnel, etc., who make up the population of a college campus. By inference, I recognize that you don’t feel these people are, as a group, made up of silly, irresponsible people incapable of proper gun handling – not to mention the segment of college students who are not age 18 - 22 of which the number is substantial.

So the bottom line for you is since X% of the college campus is 18 - 22 years of age and typically X% of that number is irresponsible EVERYBODY loses their basic, fundamental, God-given, natural right to most effectively defend themselves?

I don’t envy someone who has to promote and defend that position. It’s an intellectual Swiss cheese mess of convoluted thinking. But you have at it, buddy.[/quote]

None of those employees have a right to bring guns to work if their employer tells them that they can’t. You keep insisting on rights that don’t exist.[/quote]

Some of those aren’t employees. I gave you numerous examples yesterday which you ignored.

You also ignored my comments about the non 18-22 students.[/quote]

If they want an education from a school that disallows firearms on its campus more than they want to walk around with a gun on them, then they will voluntary surrender their Second Amendment right (along with portions of their First Amendment rights) in order to matriculate and attend class.

This isn’t about rights. That’s the thing: this isn’t about rights.

332

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I am around literally hundreds of active duty enlisted men at least half my week for the past 4 years living in a college town with a very large base nearby. Almost half my best friends are officers or otherwise related to military life. I have seen shit from the low enlisted ranks that beats the everliving fuck out of college kids in terms of stupidity, drunkenness, pussy chasing, everything. If anything, I would say there is absolutely ZERO difference in maturity level. I have more problems with them when drunk by a factor of about 5.

Your argument rests on very flawed assumptions in my mind. We have over 20,000 soldiers about 15 minutes away, and we have 20,000+ students in this town. I see no difference whatsoever.[/quote]

Take it from an enlisted guy, this is 100% accurate.

333

[quote]smh23 wrote:

None of those employees have a right to bring guns to work if their employer tells them that they can’t. You keep insisting on rights that don’t exist.[/quote]

You may have already explained this, but why is the above not an infringement of the 2nd?

334

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

None of those employees have a right to bring guns to work if their employer tells them that they can’t. You keep insisting on rights that don’t exist.[/quote]

You may have already explained this, but why is the above not an infringement of the 2nd? [/quote]

Because the government’s duty to its citizens as a system for the production and enforcement of law is very much different from its dutiy as an employer. To take an example: if the government were obligated to afford to its employees the same kinds of First Amendment rights that are afforded to its citizens, bearing in mind here that institutional punishment (removal from premises, firing, dismissal from school) is acting as a stand-in for the kinds of legal punishments that the BOR actually prohibits, then schoolteachers and policemen could say pretty much anything they wanted to with utter impunity so long as it wasn’t speech intended to incite imminent lawless action.

335

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

None of those employees have a right to bring guns to work if their employer tells them that they can’t. You keep insisting on rights that don’t exist.[/quote]

You may have already explained this, but why is the above not an infringement of the 2nd? [/quote]

Because the government’s duty to its citizens as a system for the production and enforcement of law is very much different from its dutiy as an employer. To take an example: if the government were obligated to afford to its employees the same kinds of First Amendment rights that are afforded to its citizens, bearing in mind here that institutional punishment (removal from premises, firing, dismissal from school) is acting as a stand-in for the kinds of legal punishments that the BOR actually prohibits, then schoolteachers and policemen could say pretty much anything they wanted to with utter impunity so long as it wasn’t speech intended to incite imminent lawless action.[/quote]

This is my issue:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress hasn’t made a law to prohibit free speech, say in the classroom, but universities have a policy of ethics that automatically fails a student that speaks out (uses their 1st amendment right) during an exam. This I believe is consistent with the BOR.

“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.”

Here; however, there is no mention of Congress, the government, or any other institution. Instead the phrase shall not be infringed is used. I take that as shall not be infringed period, as in by anyone. So how can an employer or government institution supersede the 2nd amendment. My contention is that they cannot.

336

^Notice the 2nd does not say, “Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” I think this is very telling in what the founders meant by adding in the 2nd amendment. Why would the founders, if they thought individual businesses or state goverments should be able to decide on whether or not arms are allowed on their property, use differnt language than they did on the 1st amendment?

337

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Here; however, there is no mention of Congress, the government, or any other institution. Instead the phrase shall not be infringed is used. I take that as shall not be infringed period, as in by anyone.
[/quote]

By anyone?

338

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Here; however, there is no mention of Congress, the government, or any other institution. Instead the phrase shall not be infringed is used. I take that as shall not be infringed period, as in by anyone.
[/quote]

By anyone?[/quote]

Do you have someone in mind?

339

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Here; however, there is no mention of Congress, the government, or any other institution. Instead the phrase shall not be infringed is used. I take that as shall not be infringed period, as in by anyone.
[/quote]

By anyone?[/quote]

Do you have someone in mind?[/quote]

I just mean–literally anyone? The owner of a house? The owner of a company? Nobody?

The BOR limits government only, and even then only in particular circumstances.

Edit: this is oversimplified, but you get what I’m saying.

340

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Here; however, there is no mention of Congress, the government, or any other institution. Instead the phrase shall not be infringed is used. I take that as shall not be infringed period, as in by anyone.
[/quote]

By anyone?[/quote]

Do you have someone in mind?[/quote]

I just mean–literally anyone? The owner of a house? The owner of a company? Nobody?

The BOR limits government only, and even then only in particular circumstances.[/quote]

I see your point and that’s tough to answer. The constitution doesn’t to my knowledge specifically address property rights so can I as a property owner tell someone he cannot exercise his 2nd amendment rights? I would say no, but I could be swayed. Instead I would say instead I have the right to make him leave if I don’t like what he is doing. Which I believe brings us full circle to the campus situation, quite a conundrum we have here…