More concealed carry idiocy


PDA






357WheelGun
April 16, 2008, 06:53 PM
From my Alma Matter:

Link (http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2008/04/16/Opinion/Sccc-Rally.Preventing.Violence.With.Violence-3326862.shtml)

The College Republicans send me a lot of e-mails. I haven't taken my name off the mailing list because I like getting e-mail, and I like having a laugh.

And last week, I was glad that I was still on their list because I received from them an e-mail of great interest.

The subject line read "Stand Up for Your Second Amendment Rights!" and the body of the e-mail advertised an event planned for next Tuesday, April 22, sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

The event, to be held in front of the Cathedral of Learning, is a kick-off rally for the nationally held "Empty Holster Protest." According to the event's Facebook page, the "Empty Holster Protest" is a week-long protest in which members of SCCC will wear empty holsters around campus to show that they are responsible, trained gun owners who deserve to be able to protect themselves and others by carrying a concealed weapon onto college campuses.

Do I fault the College Republicans for advertising this event as having anything to do with the Second Amendment? Yes. But the SCCC is responsible for the rally and not the College Republicans. And what its members are rallying for has very little to do with the Second Amendment.

I don't really believe in a person's "right to bear arms." It is an antiquated piece of legislation, necessary at the time it was written perhaps, but something that has spiraled into a number of laws and loopholes that have allowed for the propagation of gun violence in the United States. However, at the moment, the Constitution allows private citizens with gun licenses to own guns, so my dislike of weapons amounts to a hill of beans.

What the Constitution does not guarantee, though, and what the SCCC wants, is the right for people to bring those weapons into our classrooms and dorms. This I refuse to consent to.

The SCCC claims that allowing students to carry weapons on university property might prevent deaths in the event of a campus shooting because the responsible, trained gun owners will be able to take down the shooter in the early stages of the massacre.

Posted along with mock-ups of a T-shirt and poster design are a number of pictures of the guns that some of the group's founders own. They are displayed with an air of pride and include, among a few handguns, pictures of high-power weapons that couldn't be carried easily in a holster, let alone concealed - weapons made not for protection or self-defense, but in order that the possessor might feel more powerful.

These pictures show exactly the hypocrisy of the attitude of the SCCC.

What the SCCC wants is not a safer university but a university in which its members can walk around with more confidence and arrogance because they are made more dominant by a weapon that is strapped to their chests or tucked into their belts.

I know that next Tuesday is a big day for any politically minded person.

And I know that it falls during the middle of finals week and that the weather is supposed to be bad, but I have to encourage every single person out there who feels that a student's right to live a safe and nonviolent life to stop by the rally next Tuesday and inform the SCCC that its campaign is not one that will be supported here at Pitt.

If you enjoyed reading about "More concealed carry idiocy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gingerbreadman
April 16, 2008, 06:58 PM
Ow. That made my brain hurt...

Kitchen_Duty
April 16, 2008, 07:01 PM
Well he had me going for him being pro 2nd amendment but then... then it went downhill. keep fighting for our rights SCCC!

357WheelGun
April 16, 2008, 07:02 PM
I sent in a comment to the piece asking why people with carry permits were "more dominant" when it's people without permits (like the author herself) who are 5.5 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime and over 13 times more likely to commit a non-violent crime. Seems to me that the people committing the crimes are the ones who are "more dominant" in the pejorative sense.

Standing Wolf
April 16, 2008, 08:10 PM
I don't really believe in a person's "right to bear arms." It is an antiquated piece of legislation, necessary at the time it was written perhaps, but something that has spiraled into a number of laws and loopholes that have allowed for the propagation of gun violence in the United States. However, at the moment, the Constitution allows private citizens with gun licenses to own guns, so my dislike of weapons amounts to a hill of beans.

Another socialist in a snit.

CB900F
April 16, 2008, 08:33 PM
357Wheelgun;

Let me get this straight, the author of the communication is supposed to be a Republican, right? I fear for the future if that's so.

900F

Deer Hunter
April 16, 2008, 08:44 PM
Jesus Christ, would someone just send this guy somewhere where he'll have to actually look after his own saftey for once in his pathetic existance?

spyder1911
April 16, 2008, 08:56 PM
I fully support the SCCC and actually happen to be part of the Facebook group he refers to.

Heartless_Conservative
April 16, 2008, 09:10 PM
I think he gave up the last of his credibility when he refered to the Constitution as "just more legislation."

trinydex
April 16, 2008, 10:45 PM
do you understand the purpose and philosophy of the constitution? it is a document that is very well thought out and holds universal principles of governing philosophy that can't possibly become "antiquated."

it is no secret that guns or arms are the universal leveler, not only are they the final check on government (the constitution is a document founded on checking and balancing the inevitable statistics and difference in the spectrum of human diversity) but they are also the individual's most efficacious defense against personal violence.

other things that are universal levelers, information and the unobstructed dissemination of it. this is consequently another protected, unalienable, self-evident right protected by the constitution and its bill of rights.

please, just because you've become comfortable and complacent in your existence and understanding of philosophical politics, don't try to talk down on a document and institution that is far greater than you without some serious proof, evidence, data, or anything else besides a meandering opinion.

Kind of Blued
April 16, 2008, 11:06 PM
Does he know that he is free to move to a different country?

The United States of America was developed to get rid of and away from people like him. He may have been born here, but he obviously belongs elsewhere.

JCMAG
April 16, 2008, 11:52 PM
Jesus Christ, would someone just send this guy somewhere where he'll have to actually look after his own saftey for once in his pathetic existance?

Deer Hunter, unfortunately for that sot, he is where he is responsible for his own safety -- reality. Wish I could say the same thing about his head...

Here is an idea: Everytime someone like this says something stupid, tell them to shut-up 'cause their first amendment, that antiquated piece of legislature, has been repealed.

They shouldn't have nothing to fear... they're like ostriches... they can't see the threat because their heads are stuffed up a hole and that's okay with them, because if they can't see it, it can't see them.

oneslowgun
April 17, 2008, 01:51 AM
Those who place more emphasis on "ego" rather than "intellect", often confuse "confidence" with "arrogance". (OSG 2001) In this case, the author has managed not only to confuse both, but also at the same time somehow lump them both together.

Where I come from, we called people who thought like this "The weird uncle" or "The drunk uncle", and we never left him alone with the children.

papajohn
April 17, 2008, 03:33 AM
I say we hire a mugger to explain the concepts of "Reality" and "Lawful Self-Defense" to this idiot.

PJ

coloradokevin
April 17, 2008, 03:45 AM
I don't really believe in a person's "right to bear arms." It is an antiquated piece of legislation, necessary at the time it was written perhaps, but something that has spiraled into a number of laws and loopholes

People like this guy are responsible for the laws and loopholes that have punctuated the second ammendment for years.

At least he is honest in not believing in it, which is more than I can say for most anti-gun Americans.



that have allowed for the propagation of gun violence in the United States.

Right... The objects are responsible for violence. The people behind the weapon had nothing to do with it. Without legal guns, there would obviously be no violence in this country. No stabbings, no shootings with stolen guns, no beatings... Gosh, it would be a dandy place if only we could take all of the guns away from people who choose to follow the law. The criminals, after all, appear very concerned about laws.




However, at the moment, the Constitution allows private citizens with gun licenses to own guns, so my dislike of weapons amounts to a hill of beans.

Right you are!




What the Constitution does not guarantee, though, and what the SCCC wants, is the right for people to bring those weapons into our classrooms and dorms. This I refuse to consent to.

Really? So, the premise of the second ammendment was that we do have the right to keep and bear arms, as this guy pointed out in his previous quote... But, I guess he must be the one charged with determining where and when this right applies?

I love it when folks try to mold the laws to fit their point of view.

If you enjoyed reading about "More concealed carry idiocy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!