Posted on 10/24/2007 6:36:22 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
By W. Scott Lewis - Should you ever find yourself perusing the newspaper archives at your local library, take a few minutes to track down and compare the August 2, 1966, and April 17, 2007, editions of any American newspaper. You'll undoubtedly find that, for two papers written more than four decades apart, they tell strikingly similar stories.
In both editions you'll likely see that coverage of American soldiers fighting a publicly unpopular war overseas is pushed to the back pages by news of a mass shooting on the campus of a major university. But although the headlines suggest a classic case of "history repeats itself," the facts lurking beyond the newsprint actually tell a very different story.
On the morning of Aug. 1, 1966, few people had ever considered the possibility that they might die in an indiscriminate shooting spree. But shortly before noon on that fateful day, a 25-year-old former Marine climbed to the top of the University of Texas bell tower and created a worldwide reference point for such fears.
As police rushed to the scene, officers already on the UT campus struggled to formulate a plan. At that time, the Austin Police Department had no SWAT team. Officers were armed only with service revolvers and shotguns, both useless against a sniper firing from a fortified position high above the ground.
Seeing that something had to be done, students quickly retrieved hunting rifles from dorm rooms and fraternity houses, took up defensive positions throughout the campus and returned fire. In the August 2006 edition of Texas Monthly magazine, Bill Helmer, a graduate student at UT during the shooting, recalled the experience to journalist Pamela Colloff: He said he remembered thinking, "All we need is a bunch of idiots running around with rifles." But what they did
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ping
Maybe they could also protest the abortion mills by carrying around empty child carriers.....................
Not only in academic circles, but in political circles as well.
Thank goodness they left their assault rifles in their dorm rooms < / s >
And lets not forget the drive-by media. They get their panties all in a twist at the sight of a gun.
I met Monday with a group of college conservatives and the Empty Holster campaign was on their mind.
They knew well of the deaths at nearby Virginia Tech but were very sceptical about having students with concealed pistols on campus. the consensus was they didn’t need nuts with guns running around on campus. They decided it was best to let this event slide.
You should have told them that they already have "nuts with guns running around on campus". What they really need is informed, trained and licensed people on campus to put an end to a madman with a gun. We need to do away with "gun-free zones". We need to replace them with "safety zones".
I am waiting for the challenge to this crap to hit SCOTUS. It is dangerous but we need it decided once and for all. CCW violates the 2nd as mch as prohibitive statutes do.
They knew well of the deaths at nearby Virginia Tech but were very sceptical about having students with concealed pistols on campus.
So, these so-called "conservatives" are daft enough to believe that "nuts" will obey the "gun free zone" rule at their college? Wow, with the so-called conservatives on campus that abjectly stupid, is it any wonder that the libs rule our colleges and universities?
I know, but I am not able or knowledgeable enough to present the arguments you propose.
I thought it best to remain silent than to engage in a discussion where my grasp of the facts was weak.
My point is to present a view expressed by some conservative students attempting to get a handle on their personal actions.
well, you blew it. Whether this is their statement or your attempt to paraphrase their feelings is irrelevent. We must stop falling into the trap of being visualized as a bunch of Chos with the only difference being that we havent 'snapped' yet.
God willing, maybe these 'conservatives' will see a bunch of normal people that they didnt realize were even CCW holders and learn the difference between a 'nut' and a responsible deterrent that may just possibly save their a$$ one day...
Too bad we can't all show up to a rally for RINO-rudy with empty holsters AND empty child carriers.
Evidently, they were not really 'conservatives', but the limp-wrist crowd who have little education in legal armed self-defense.
For some reason, even the most deranged psychotics prefer to open fire at schools and other locations where they know they will be the only ones who are armed. I wonder why that is? Hmmmm...
It depends. Provided open carry is legal, requiring a permit for concealed carry doesn’t strike me as a violation of the 2nd Amendment—it’s regulating the militia (that is the armed citizenry) by requiring all but those whom the government has vetted as trustworthy to exercise their right to bear arms by bearing arms openly. Prohibiting open carry to any citizen except those whose rights have been impaired by a felony conviction or a court finding of insanity strikes me as a naked violation of the 2nd.
.....What could possibly be wrong with allowing these people to carry on campus.....
I can’t argue either way. I do know that these students had friends at nearby Va Tech and the grief is still real here.
The nuts referred to are not LEO’s or other such but thought to be wacko students intent on revenge.
Now, I'm confused. First you said the students were skeptical about students with concealed pistols. In the next line you say they didn't need 'nuts with guns' running around the campus.
Do they not know what requirements are necessary for a permit?
Best way to defend against 'wacko students intent on revenge' is to be armed.
I believe you said it best in one of your pervious posts..."I don't know enough".
You've just hit the nail on the head. I teach computer programs at 2 local colleges and I do this all the time in my classes. In the course of the class I talk about how I use the program in my everyday life as the director of operations for a "women's non-profit". As the class progresses they always want to know the name of the org and at the end I finally tell them - Second Amendment Sisters. By that time, I've gained their trust and have given them valuable info so they see me as "normal" and I've changed their image of a gun-owner....hopefully.
There were both views expressed in the discussion.
I’m reporting my observations as best I can recall.
Agreed.
I was on campus that day, or at least that morning. For some reason I suddenly decided to drive to San Antonio to visit my mother. Otherwise I would have been walking up, as I usually did, to my desk in the “Stacks,” the dozen floors in the tower where library books were stored. I first became aware when I was in a store with my mother and saw the tower on TV. I watched fascinated until the firing ended, and I learned that a policeman at great personal risk had gunned down the killer with his .38. The next day I talked to a cop who was guarding a door to the closed building why no one had not used a bazooka or some heavy weapon from the local armory to blow up the tower. He actually seemed shocked at the suggestion. But I now think that it was the suppressing fire of those students that made such radical steps unnecessary.
Academics are people who have an irrational faith in the ability of the state to protect them from others.
How so? In can exercise my right to bear arms by carrying a loaded Glock in a plainly visible holster, or by carrying it in a shoulder holster under my sportcoat or hidden in my briefcase. Requiring me to bear arms openly does not infringe my right to bear arms.
Provided open carry is permitted, requiring permits for concealed carry is simply part of well-regulating the militia (i.e. the armed citizenry).
A whole bunch of right-wingers think that declaring a zone "sex offender free" makes it so -- even though more than half the sex-offense convictions every year are first-time convictions.
Good for you!!!
Everywhere.
Regardless of what restrictions are in place.
Why?
I have been in the type of confrontations and survived simply because I was armed, and in a place where I was restricted from being armed.
Years ago I decided that innocents, my loved ones and I were by far more important than any perpatrator bent on evil, no matter the place.
I am not a 'nut' or prone to fits of anger, but I am dead shot and able to defend those who cannot defend themselves and will give my life in their defense if necessary.
Other than a military base, I don't give one damn where it is, or if it's 'restricted'.
Let's see....
'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.'
Nope....don't see anything like you say that "concealed carry is simply part of well-regulating the militia". It doesn't define ANYWHERE that arms have to be open carry or concealed with a license.
Love it!!! It’s saved to my hard drive...thanks.
That was a great article! Day 3 of carrying an empty holster for me. Still nobody has noticed.
That’s amazing that you haven’t had any reaction. Where do you go to school?
Actually just this summer some nut did just that. Think it was in Florida but can't remember for sure. Ended up being a few hour standoff but don't think anyone was even injured on either side. Think the guy was actually trying to rob the place not kill people.
Just a small community college getting my core out of the way cheap. We have small classes (think 10 people is the largest class I've been in for two years).
Everyone in my classes (instructors and administrators included) knows I generally drive out to the shooting range after classes so probably more like they noticed, but since they know I carry everywhere but school anyways they don't say anything.
It all started my first term when in English class the liberal instructor was talking about a police shooting where a 16 year old charged a cop with an SKS with Bayonet attached. Cop pulls and shoots.
She was talking about police brutality and how they should have found out if the kid was mentally aware and all that other crap and said "I wonder if they did the right thing".
I spoke up and said "I'm sorry but if someone is charging you with a rifle and bayonet the ONLY correct answer is two to the body and one to the head". The class cheered. That instructor didn't like me after that.
It did open up for the students to be able to discuss gun ownership and eventually through that first term everyone knew that I was the "gun guy" (and not in a bad way) on campus.
Unfortunately last term then off to Boise State where I get to put up with Kustra and his anti-gun policies.
Hey! I thought this piece concerned the lack of testicular fortitude
among today’s college-aged American males wrt/ the fairer sex.
Esp on college campuses. I chased almost everything in a skirt in my
days as a collegiate. Got shot down too often. At least I was in the
game.
MV
Then I take it you think the Founders meant nothing by the phrase ‘well regulated’ modifying militia?
In defense of bert, most college age students dont realize that “guns on campus” would only apply to most seniors and some juniors over the age of 21 who have gone through the state-required courses and background checks (and in some counties, finger printing) to recieve their CWPs. The first thing that comes to their minds is drunken 18 year old fraternity boys waving around their TEC-9s during their 9am Chem 101 class.
Remember, the majority of college bound 18 year olds are public school educated. They are tought from kindergarden that guns are bad (like the child that was suspended for the stick figure drawing of a squirt gun). It is up to us to educate them that “guns on campus” means only a select few who have recieved training/education and are the least likely group of people in the united states to have criminal backgrounds. We also have to teach them that there are over 10,000 gun laws on the books already and anyone armed on campus would still have to obey all those laws. We wouldnt be chasing after shooters or intervening in heated arguments with guns drawn. We would be using our (concealed) guns only to defend ourselves and those around us until we have made it to safety. Most states have laws prohibiting shooting a fleeing criminal who has just robbed you. It is rediculous, I know, but we have a duty to retreat and let the law enforcment officers handle the situation. However, if a shooter kicks in our door and starts shooting our classmates, its better to have the option of being armed rather than to have that option taken away from us.
Yes. Exactly. The phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause. A dependent clause in no way restricts the independent clause in standard english usage.
In addition, the term "well regulated" meant something much different in their day in ours. It was much closer to the concept of "gun control" meaning hitting your target, rather than restricting gun ownership.
Sorry, the adjective wouldn’t be there if it were meaningless. My point is that requiring open carry of most gun-owners is not a restriction on the right to keep arms—it deprived no one of arms—nor a restriction on the right to bear arms—any citizen without legal impairment can carry a gun—but part of what the Founders would have meant by regulating the militia: a manual of arms, in this case with the very minimal instruction ‘when you carry your gun, carry it openly’. Requirements that gun owners keep their firearms in working order, practice, maintain a supply of ammunition would all similarly be part of what the Founders meant by ‘well regulated’ as applied to the militia (the armed citizenry). A requirement that firearms be stored locked would also be legitimate, but *only* if it applied only when the owner is absent (otherwise it infringes the right to bear arms).
Remember I am arguing for the legitimacy of restrictions on concealed carry *only* in a context where open carry is permitted to all citizens not under disability due to a felony conviction or legal finding of insanity. In any state where open carry is forbidden, a strict reading of the 2nd would require that concealed carry must be permitted to all citizens not under legal disability (as it were a manual of arms with an instruction ‘when you carry you gun, keep it hidden when not in use, to avoid distressing the general populace’.)
I am an originalist: in my reading of the Constitution, the Federal government, and the several states (thanks to the 14th amendment) may not prohibit owning or carrying a gun, but they may certainly regulate the practice in ways consonant with the Founders meaning of ‘well regulate militia’. I think all of the examples I have given fall under that, and you and other readers may surely evince more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.