Plymouth State University in New Hampshire - Pro-Gun Demonstration

[mikeb302000]

The Boston Globe reports on another pro-gun demonstration on a college campus.

Jardis and Mozingo maintain that the university system’s policy banning firearms flies in the face of state law and the state and federal constitutions. They say they look forward to returning to Grafton County Superior Court Tuesday to argue against a permanent injunction barring them from bringing weapons onto state campuses.

Jardis would not say if he was carrying a concealed firearm. Instead, he said several times, “I just want to point out that no one knows if I’m carrying a gun.’’

“Yeah, and that’s terrifying,’’ replied one female student.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun. These are folks who for the most part do not enter dangerous neighborhoods, do not carry large amounts of cash, and lead perfectly normal lives. Yet, their fear of that highly unlikely attack is so great they decide a gun is the answer, in spite of evidence and commonsense to the contrary.

Now comes a female student who says she's "terrified" of guys like that. Is this worthy of being mocked? Does this indicate that she's the unreasonable one? No, of course not.

The reason pro-gun voices so readily mock people who speak up like that is because they've been practiced in turning the tables whenever possible. The are masters at accusing the others of what they themselves are guilty of. From there it just monkey-like repetition, and I would imagine the less gifted among them actually begin to believe it. They've lost touch with reality.

Look at the guy in the foreground of the picture, I think that's Bradley Jardis. Does he have a bit of that Timothy-McVeigh intensity, or what? And the other guy, what's he remind you of? I realize reading facial expressions is not an exact science, but isn't that part of the situational awareness all the gun lovers keep talking about. Are they the only ones who can do it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[gejohnston]

1. where do I start?

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. What evidence that CCWs are fearful?

When do pro gun voices mock anyone who speaks out? Show me the evidence. For every one you come up with, I can show at least ten examples of anti gun extremists mocking pro gun voices, blatant regional bigotry, classism, personal attacks, logical fallacies, projection, and just plain stupid nonsense. I can point out two of those in this post.
monkey like repetition? You don't read stuff from your own side? You are just as guilty.
Is this really the best you can do? And what on earth is Timothy McVeigh intensity? Is that anything like Paul Helmke having a Pat Roberson like grin every time he lies?

[Callisto32]

2. Jardis...

is a fairly well-known figure among the lbertarians. If I recall correctly, he was a police officer in NH for I believe 11 years, until he quit over ethical issues revolving around the enforcement of unjust drug laws...

Though I don't know him personally, I have heard a number of interviews with him, and read some of his writings, and have never seen anything particularly unreasonable. Now, I know everybody else thinks we libertarians are unreasonable, but hell, there ain't no accounting for taste.

I would hope that such people as I believe Jardis to be have McVeigh-like intensity. It sure beats the hell out of monsters like McVeigh having it.

[aikoaiko]

3. Given your intensity and obsession with disarming law abiding folks....

...I question your ability to judge others.

[mikeb302000]

67. I don't want to disarmam anyone except the unfit nt

[Oneka]

69. Of course

the arbiter of "unfit" will be you, and the definition of "unfit" will be "set in jello" amirite?

[aikoaiko]

70. Really, I thought you were against the larwful concealed carry.

Am I wrong about that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. So it wasn't you that wrote this? Better have a talk with their ISP about that identity theft...

and/or forgery:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x463908#463950




Oh, wait- it really *was* you!

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011_06_26_archive.html


http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/06/29/bloomberg-buying-ads/

(about 1/2 way down the page)


So, were you telling the truth then, or are you telling the truth now?

[Hoyt]

4. Whew, link shows a couple of young republican "gun activists" I think. Female student sounds smart.

[aikoaiko]

5. And yet she didn't express fear of the same student carrying a gun at pizza & subs across the street

Or maybe this student has so much fear of people carrying guns she never leaves campus.

[Hoyt]

7. I think she has seen the types who are into guns at that age -- and wants no part of it on campus.

[PavePusher]

13. "...at that age..."

What age?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. 21 year olds with no criminal history ... quite the group of people to be concerned about, eh?

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. This rally was HUGH!?!!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/12/10/2_gun_advocates_show_up_at_nh_university/

Two guys and a can of red bull.

Some big rally.

[Hoyt]

8. Guns on campus are bad enough, but those two guys are really suspect.

[PavePusher]

10. Suspect of what, hoyt?

Care to list some specifics, or are you merely continuing to cast your usual baseless slander, innuendo and insinuation?

[Hoyt]

28. Lack of judgement and priorities in life.

[PavePusher]

30. Ah, I was right. n/t

[iverglas]

33. got google?

Poor Bradley Jarvis; nobody wants him.

http://freekeene.com/2010/01/27/brad-jardis-leaves-law-enforcement/

I think somewhere there is a militia missing its wingnut.

[iverglas]

34. there are 2 Tommy Mozingos in the US white pages

... which I find a little difficult to believe ...

Which one do we suppose this one is?

http://porcfest.com/news/libertopia-makes-official-film-debut-porcfest-2011

The wait is over! Libertopia, the first feature length documentary to explore the people of the Free State Project will premiere at PORCFEST 2011.

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=de99090d3af90378cee703f08&id=ad1169c350&e=674f1e4c1b

Ah, nothing like a good loonytarian when you need a hero.

[PavePusher]

9. "The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun."

Immediately disproved by your own quote from "one female student".

Duh.

[PavePusher]

11. Ah, the master of slander, innuendo, insinuation and lies continues.

Feel free to post some actual facts and evidence. Any day now, amIrite?

[PavePusher]

12. Only one comment so far at the original article, and it's a massive strawman

You have to have a subscription to leave comments. Screw 'em.

[spin]

14. Question, are people who study a martial arts such as karate or jujitsu...

as fearful of attack as those who carry concealed?

I might also point out that situational awareness is taught in martial arts classes so it is not just something unique to those who legally carry concealed.

[PavePusher]

15. Obviously, people who study martial arts want to attack others.

Why else would they desire to obtain such lethal and concealed skills?

And they've probably got plans to put red-dot lasers on their frikken' heads.

Throw me a bone here...

[spin]

16. The marital arts instructor that I had ...

was very careful to screen all his students and he often told the class that the training they received was only to be used for self defense.

[PavePusher]

17. Heh, just riffing off one of our favorite... provacateurs.

Same message I got from all my Uechi-ryu instructors.

But we also sometimes practiced on life-like training dummies. So we're probably all hoping to be attacked so we can kill someone.

O.K., I'll stop now. Sorry....

[spin]

21. No problem. I recognized your tactics...

What some fail to realize is that shooting is just another martial art. Often the skills learned in a martial art are used for legitimate self defense.

One advantage of traditional martial arts such as judo, karate or jujitsu is that you always have those skills with you. One significant drawback is that those skills become limited as the distance of the attacker from the victim increases. Also a small victim such as a female is still at a large disadvantage if faced by a much larger and stronger opponent.

A concealed handgun is more effective when the attacker is outside of the reach of the victim and can equalize a difference in size. One significant advantage is that often the mere display of a handgun will cause the attacker to flee. One disadvantage is that you must have a handgun with you.

Of course as with any martial art, in order to be effective, training is necessary and the user must have the correct mindset.

It's not a bad idea to have both proficiency in a martial art such as jujitsu and the ability to effectively use a handgun for self defense. Such a combination allows you to have more options when attacked.

[petronius]

18. Y'know, I really don't think self-defense is the main purpose of the marital arts,

let alone the only purpose.

Careful screening, of course, is a must...

[PavePusher]

22. May I see your Karate Permit, please?

[petronius]

23. Sorry, dude. Any permits I may have are a private matter between me and my

'sparring partner.'



(Note: It's a typo joke, review the subthread...)

[petronius]

26. Regarding smilies, there are a bunch of new ones here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/du3/emoticons/index.html

[spin]

24. Much depends on the martial art ...

My instructor's primarily classes taught judo and they were oriented toward competition. At least one of his students represented the United States in the Olympics.

However he also taught a jujitsu class for self defense. Much of the emphasis of this class was on effective techniques that were forbidden in judo competition because of the damage they could inflict. Considerable time was spent learning how to disarm a person with a gun, knife or club. The class also included elements of karate, judo and Aikido.

edited mainly to see how it works

[petronius]

25. A joke that needs explaining really wasn't, so I confess myself a failure

But here's the explanation: you typed "marital" - pertaining to marriage - in the post I responded to. I thought it was funny...

[spin]

27. I should learn not to watch football while I am posting on DU ...

Oh well.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Excellent post Mike. K&R

Keep up the good work.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. People like you two have made gun control the success it is today. Long may you post!

Which reminds me- have you donated to the Brady Campaign? They could use some of your money to maintain their excellent
record.

WARNING: Post may contain sarcasm. Use with caution. If allergic reaction symptoms occur, discontinue use and seek medical help.

[Starboard Tack]

32. I don't support Brady or the NRA

I do support RKBA as originally intended. I do not support irrational behavior like compulsive toting.

[Straw Man]

36. Oh, do tell...

[div class = excerpt]I do support RKBA as originally intended.
And how was it "originally intended"? Please be specific.

[div class = excerpt]I do not support irrational behavior like compulsive toting.
Because we all know that rational people use their sixth sense to know when they're going to be victims of violent assaults, right?

[Starboard Tack]

37. You know perfectly well what the original intent was

To maintain a well regulated militia. Rational people don't use their sixth sense, they use common sense. Compulsive behavior based on irrational fears is a disorder.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. No, we know perfectly well what *you believe* the original intent was.

However, saying so does not make it so. I would also add that mindset is a dangerous one for an alleged progressive to have,
as there's also no mention of a right to privacy.

Would you like your metric of 'original intent' used in reference to Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, or Lawrence v. Texas?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Haven't we been over this before?

Do you even know what you're talking about with "well regulated militia"?

Incidentally, the 2nd Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, restricts government. It does not grant government additional powers and it certainly does not restrict the actions of the people.

[Straw Man]

40. I do, but apparently you don't.

[div class = excerpt]To maintain a well regulated militia.
Even the dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court recognizes the individual right. You'll have to do better than that.

[div class = excerpt]Rational people don't use their sixth sense, they use common sense.
Does your common sense tell you when to expect a violent assault? If so, I must say that you have rather uncommon common sense.

[div class = excerpt]Compulsive behavior based on irrational fears is a disorder.
Yes. Compulsive posting based on an irrational fear of firearms is a disorder.

[Starboard Tack]

42. What does SCOTUS have to do with the original intent apart from interpreting it?

We are expressing our own views here, not the views of SCOTUS. However, I support an individual's right to keep arms for personal use and for self defense. That is a long way from supporting the indiscriminate toting of concealed weapons in every day situations, not to mention the promoting of such behavior in the name of civil rights. I accept that there are many people who justifiably feel the need to carry a weapon in their daily lives, based on the realities of the environment they live in and particular occupational hazards.

My common sense tells me when I may be more likely to expect a violent assault. Obviously there are no guarantees, but there are few guarantees in anyone's life, armed or not.

I do not post compulsively and I have no fear of firearms, unless they are pointed at me. Let's try to keep the conversation civil. I'm not trying to take your, or anyone's guns away. I'm trying to get a grasp on what is happening to our society and whether handgun proliferation and concealed carry is good or bad for society as a whole, and whether it will eventually lead to a curbing of our rights.

[Straw Man]

43. Interpreting it creates the law we live under.

[div class = excerpt]We are expressing our own views here, not the views of SCOTUS.
Their views become the law of the land. Your views are ... your views.

[div class = excerpt]However, I support an individual's right to keep arms for personal use and for self defense.
I see you choose to leave the "and bear" part out of it. Duly noted.

[div class = excerpt]That is a long way from supporting the indiscriminate toting of concealed weapons in every day situations, not to mention the promoting of such behavior in the name of civil rights.
Please define "indiscriminate." Again, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that there is a magical condition called an "everyday situation" that precludes any possibility of violent assault. I'm not "promoting" any behavior -- merely affirming a right that is guaranteed to me by the Constitution. You are under no obligation to exercise that right if you should choose not to.

[div class = excerpt]I accept that there are many people who justifiably feel the need to carry a weapon in their daily lives, based on the realities of the environment they live in and particular occupational hazards.
The notion that violent crime happens only in predictable places and at predictable times is a similar delusion.

[div class = excerpt]My common sense tells me when I may be more likely to expect a violent assault. Obviously there are no guarantees, but there are few guarantees in anyone's life, armed or not.
No, there are no guarantees, and I am baffled by your insistence that the degree to which the carrying of firearms is a social ill is somehow inversely proportional to need. If I carry a firearm but never have the need to use it, surely no harm has been done.

[div class = excerpt]I do not post compulsively and I have no fear of firearms, unless they are pointed at me. Let's try to keep the conversation civil.
You're the one who suggested that a certain lifestyle choice of myself and many others on this forum is "compulsive" and "irrational" and constitutes "a disorder." And you're lecturing me on civility?

[div class = excerpt]I'm not trying to take your, or anyone's guns away.
No, you'd just like to be the arbiter of where and when I should carry one.

[div class = excerpt]I'm trying to get a grasp on what is happening to our society and whether handgun proliferation and concealed carry is good or bad for society as a whole, and whether it will eventually lead to a curbing of our rights.
What exactly is handgun "proliferation" to you? A raw number of guns? A percentage of the population that carries? A crime statistic? I see it as a buzzword whose sole purpose is to portray handguns as a social evil. So this is just an intellectual endeavor for you? And what have you discovered, beyond the fact that gun owners object to being called irrational, compulsive, and emotionally disturbed?

I see you're back to the "stop exercising those rights or they will be taken away from you" meme. Sigh...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. If, as you said....

you "support an individual's right to keep arms for personal use and for self defense.", how is that "a long way from supporting the indiscriminate toting of concealed weapons in every day situations"?

Self defense does not make an appointment and certainly becomes required in every day situations.

Even if your "common sense" were 100% accurate and could tell you when a need to defend yourself was about to arise, what good does that do you if the best tool for the job is sitting at home rather than on your hip?

Either you support it or you don't. If you support an individual right to be armed for self defense, you must support the right of that individual to carry in the event it is needed.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Let me ask you a question

How many times have you needed your gun and used it?
I support the right to own and to carry when necessary, but not the practice of compulsive concealed carry. What is hard to understand about that? I support the right to carry as part of a well organized militia, which I translate today as the NG. I do not support the use of a handgun outside the home as a self defense tool.
I support free speech, but I don't support assholes with megaphones standing on the corner of my street at eight o'clock every Sunday morning. People who abuse their rights are polluters. Compulsive handgun toting is an addiction, the same as any compulsive behavior. What don't you understand about that?

[rrneck]

46. Consistently incoherent and emotionally driven bullshit. ntnt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. No problem...

How many times have you needed your gun and used it?

About as many times as I've needed my seat belt, helmet and other protective gear - which is to say none. However, I am REQUIRED to buy a car with a seat belt whether I want them or not, and required to wear it when I am even a passenger. In many states I am required to obtain a helmet at my expense and wear it in order to protect me from others who aren't paying attention.

Why is one device which might save my life required by laws which violate my rights but yet another device which may also save my life is something you wish to see forbidden by law, also violating my rights?


I support the right to own and to carry when necessary, but not the practice of compulsive concealed carry. What is hard to understand about that?

First off, define "necessary". Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method to predict said necessity. Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method of ensuring my gun is available to me when it is necessary.

You may not like someone carrying a firearm, but it does not harm you and honestly, your opinion as to if it is compulsive is irrelevant.

I support the right to carry as part of a well organized militia, which I translate today as the NG.

Two things:

1) It is well REGULATED, not well organized. If you wish to apply that standard, I will then assume you have no problem with me carrying an M4 (select fire please) and an M9?

2) The National Guard is defined as a select militia. Then there is the unorganized militia which is everyone else. If the terms of the Dick act were applied, you would essentially be saying you want to disarm all women, men over 45 and public officials. Let me know how that works out for you.

Thankfully, militia membership is not a condition of the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not support the use of a handgun outside the home as a self defense tool.

Got something more effective to suggest? No? Then really keep your opinion to yourself. You're welcome to apply those restrictions to your actions, but not to mine. Do you not get it?

I support free speech, but I don't support assholes with megaphones standing on the corner of my street at eight o'clock every Sunday morning.


So you support free speech as long as you don't have to know about it? You may not like to hear those "assholes" but they have EVERY right to speak and to be in public.

What you said sounds suspiciously like "I am OK with black people living in my city, but I don't support them being in my neighborhood"

People who abuse their rights are polluters.

It would appear, based upon what you have stated, that you define "abuse" as "exercise in ways different than I would choose to". Is a person who attends worship services daily abusing his right to practice a religion? According to your arbitrary standards, he is.

Compulsive handgun toting is an addiction, the same as any compulsive behavior. What don't you understand about that?

I understand the message you're attempting to send, however the statement is flawed on its face. Are you suggesting a cop, for example, is suffering from an addiction? Are my wearing of a seat when I drive and a helmet when i ride examples of compulsive behavior? Even if they WERE, are these behaviors harmful to anyone?

The behavior, even if it is an addiction, is not harmful to others. Hence, you have no legitimate reason to even know about it, let alone restrict it. What do YOU not understand about that?

[Starboard Tack]

59. OK, let me respond with my opinion, if I'm allowed.

Why is one device which might save my life required by laws which violate my rights but yet another device which may also save my life is something you wish to see forbidden by law, also violating my rights?
How does having to wear a seatbelt or helmet violate your rights? Driving a car or motorcycle is not a right, but a privilege bestowed upon you by the state. The same state that is prepared to provide emergency services if you injure yourself. The difference in the devices is that the above mentioned are designed specifically to prevent and/or minimize injury. A handgun is designed specifically to cause injury. The fact that you perceive a handgun as a safety device, does not alter that fact.

First off, define "necessary". Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method to predict said necessity. Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method of ensuring my gun is available to me when it is necessary.
Necessary, in the case of carrying a handgun on one's person, I would define as a logical assumption that it may be needed because of known circumstances and conditions peculiar to an individuals work, lifestyle and environment, such as transporting large amounts of cash, having to operate in a high risk environment, having received credible threats on one's life, a police officer in pursuit of a violent felon. There are no 100% foolproof methods of predicting anything, just as there is no evidence that a handgun is a 100% effective tool for self defense. Why is it that you, so often, dismiss challenges to your point of view as being statistically insignificant, yet you want me to provide you with a 100% option.

Got something more effective to suggest? No? Then really keep your opinion to yourself.You're welcome to apply those restrictions to your actions, but not to mine. Do you not get it?
As you have never needed to use your gun, I assume you have been using what most of us use. Common sense. Why should I keep my opinions to myself? This is a forum where we share opinions and discuss. Why do you respond if you don't want my opinion?
I am not trying to place any restrictions on you. Where did I say that? I just think it is silly behavior, that's all.

It would appear, based upon what you have stated, that you define "abuse" as "exercise in ways different than I would choose to". Is a person who attends worship services daily abusing his right to practice a religion? According to your arbitrary standards, he is.
I think abuse is when one takes something that is essentially good/positive in nature and indulges in it to the point that it becomes obsessive and potentially self destructive. Drinking alcohol or taking drugs are good examples. Masturbation is another.

The behavior, even if it is an addiction, is not harmful to others. Hence, you have no legitimate reason to even know about it, let alone restrict it. What do YOU not understand about that?
I totally agree with you. As I have said, I have no desire to restrict it. I'm just offering my thoughts. You are at liberty to discount them as worthless, or you might pause and rethink.

[PavePusher]

49. "Compulsive shoe wearing is an addiction, the same as any compulsive behavior."

See how stupid that sounds?

[Starboard Tack]

64. Makes me wonder if you've ever walked barefoot in the street

Shoes make sense, especially in cities. Not so much where I live. Shoes are designed to protect feet. Handguns are designed to harm humans. You can come up with silly analogies all day, but addicts, by definition, develop a dependency which leads to negative consequences in their relationships, ability to function without satisfying their addiction. I am not suggesting that all CC toters are addicts. That's for the individual to know, but from what I've read, it seems clear that many would have great difficulty leaving home unarmed.

[PavePusher]

65. My handgun is designed to protect me.

And possibly others.

[Starboard Tack]

72. No, it is designed to cause injury. That is it's function.

You choose to use it as a protective tool. Big difference. Those who use it as an offensive tool are more in line with it's designed purpose.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. Nope - that's your OPINION.

A handgun is designed to throw a projectile with reasonable accuracy for the size. How you choose to use it is up to you.

A hammer, for example, is designed to focus blunt force on a small area. Most people use them to drive nails, but they are also used to destroy things, and in some cases, to harm people.

By the logic you apply to guns, we should consider hammers a weapon designed to bash heads, since that is how they are used a small percentage of the time...(ironically, hammers WERE designed to bash heads - the other uses came much later)

[Starboard Tack]

74. Wrong. It's not my opinion. It is a fact.

The principle purpose of a handgun is to shoot a projectile at a person, whether used defensively or offensively. When used as designed it injures or kills. A hammer, when used as designed drives in nails. A handgun is a weapon and has no other purpose.

[PavePusher]

76. Cite, please? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

78. Cite what?

[PavePusher]

79. This:

"The principle purpose of a handgun is to shoot a projectile at a person..."

"A handgun is a weapon and has no other purpose."

Either your knowledge is incomplete, or your imagination has failed you.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Please enlighten me as to it's other purposes

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. We have....

Repeatedly.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Let me help you

You claim a handgun's designed purpose is not to kill or maim, but to be used as a tool of self-defense. Right?
So, when actually used for self-defense, how would that go down? Would you just point your gun and scowl at your would be assailant? Would you take it out and wave it around? Or would you do what the book says and aim for center mass and be ready to pull the trigger?

I really don't see what the problem is with accepting what the designed purpose of a handgun is. Elephant guns are designed to kill elephants. Deer guns are designed to kill deer. M16's are designed to kill people. Handguns are designed to kill people.
They can all be used for other purposes, but it doesn't change their original purpose.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. No i don't

What I claim is quite simple. A handgun is designed to fire a projectile with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Nothing more or less.

Handguns are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to be a compromise between being unarmed and having a rifle - not unlike daggers in their time.

Some handguns are intended to be used for hunting. Some for target shooting. Some for self defense. Some for just general all around use. None are intended to be used to kill people.

In terms of self defense usage, I would hope the mere presence of a gun would be enough to convince my assailant to find a weaker target. If it did not, then yes, I would shoot to stop him. The important word there is STOP, not kill. If he dies, tough shit for him, but that is not the goal.

Your last paragraph is pure bullshit. There are no "elephant guns" - that is nothing but a term someone made up. The guns are large bore rifles for large game. Same with a deer gun. It is simply a rifle. Incidentally, one of the most common guns used for hunting is also the standard military sniper rifle - same gun, same cartridges, it just has a green stock. M16s are not designed to kill people - they were designed to be a replacement for the standard issue infantry rifle of the time. In fact, it was accepted that their design and caliber were far more likely to wound than kill. If killing were the goal, they'd have stuck with .308 or .30-06 as those calibers are far more effective at actually killing someone. .223 (or if you prefer, 5.56mm) is not your best choice if your goal is to kill someone.

Further, you asked for "other purposes". Those "other purposes" have been detailed quite clearly for you and yet, you simply dismiss them out of hand as if they were irrelevant in favor of your opinion they are designed solely to kill people.

Even if they WERE designed with the sole purpose of killing people - a purpose for which they are inadequate - there would be nothing wrong with that. Killing is sometimes necessary.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Thank you for confirming. Damn, it's like pulling teeth sometimes.

And I never said "designed with the sole purpose of killing people". I said designed specifically, which of course they are. Shooting at targets is practicing to kill people. The targets at most ranges are silhouettes of people.

Of course, they don't call large bore rifles elephant guns, but we all know that large bore rifles are for shooting large animals, up to and including elephants. Sorry, my mistake about m16s, they are designed to shoot people, as are handguns. Killing is just a common side effect of shooting them.

So, I should have said they are designed for shooting people, not necessarily, killing them. Are we on the same page now?

[PavePusher]

50. You keep insinuating a mental aberation.

Totally without evidence, qualifications or in-person diagnosis.

[Starboard Tack]

53. What's your opinion on compulsive behavior?

Do you think it is healthy? If you lived in southern California, would you carry an umbrella every day? If so, one might conclude you have a psychological problem. If you lived in London, one might think you are simply being cautious.
OCD does not necessarily render one dysfunctional, but any compulsive behavior based on irrational thinking is questionable. And when that behavior involves the surreptitious carrying of a firearm, it becomes a valid concern to society.

[gejohnston]

54. define

so seat belts are compulsive behavior based on irrational thinking?

I think making mental health diagnosis with out a license falls in the same category as practicing medicine or law without one.
If one has a license from the state, society decided that there is no harm.
In places that repealed the licensing requirements, society decided there is no harm
In Vermont's case, it has never been on their radar.

[Straw Man]

51. And I have a question for you.

[div class = excerpt]I do not support the use of a handgun outside the home as a self defense tool.
Do you believe that violent assaults only happen in the home?

[Starboard Tack]

52. No I don't, but I advocate using other tactics outside the home

Primarily, I would suggest avoidance tactics, which I assume you already practice. Have you ever needed to use your gun? Just curious.

[Straw Man]

55. Why "other tactics"?

Avoidance is fine, but that's only part of the picture. No, I've never had to use my gun. I've never had to use my fire extinguisher either, but I still keep one.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Do you carry yout fire extinguisher around with you?

And I might point out that a fire extinguisher is designed specifically to put out fires and save lives, while a handgun is designed specifically to cause injury. Do you really not see the difference?

[Straw Man]

66. In my car.

If there were a pocket-sized one, I would carry it.

[div class = excerpt]And I might point out that a fire extinguisher is designed specifically to put out fires and save lives, while a handgun is designed specifically to cause injury. Do you really not see the difference?
Complete red herring. They are both designed to protect the bearer from disaster: fire in the former case and violent assault in the latter. Do you really not see the similarity?

[Starboard Tack]

75. That's funny "the bearer" of a fire extinguisher. Good for you.

Red herring? I think you brought up the fire extinguisher analogy.
Stay safe. Don't let that car catch fire.

[Straw Man]

77. Dude, you're easily amused.

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

[div class = excerpt]That's funny "the bearer" of a fire extinguisher.
OK, I give up. What do you call someone who makes use of a fire extinguisher? A user? A wielder? Pick any word that makes you happy, and then tell me what any of that has to do with our discussion except as a convenient way for you to tap dance your way out of it.

[div class = excerpt]Red herring? I think you brought up the fire extinguisher analogy.
Stay safe. Don't let that car catch fire.
The red herring isn't the fire extinguisher; it's the old "but guns are designed to kill" chestnut.

Use the best tool for the job. For self-defense, that's a handgun. For extinguishing fires, it's better to bear a fire extinguisher. I'm sure you have a fire extinguisher on your boat, right? You might need it if you get too crazy with that flare gun.

[Marengo]

56. In other words, you only support the freedom of expression so long as it doesn't disturb you. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

60. Not at all, I support all forms of expression.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to be pissed when I'm woken up on a Sunday morning after working late by someone with a megaphone outside my bedroom window. He got a taste of my 1A rights.

[Marengo]

68. No, you do not. The individual's right of expression in a public space...

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:15 PM - Edit history (2)

supercedes your personal convenience or desire for comfort. That fact that you cannot accept that reveals much about your personality. If the type of behavior falls within the established legal parameters of that right, it is in no way abuse of that right.

[SteveW]

58. This needs correction...

The Bill of Rights recognized certain rights; among them the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The federal government states its interest in that right by re-asserting its right to call for the militia, as specified in the Articles. The so-called "militia clause" does not control or otherwise modify that right to keep and bear arms.

It should also be noted that such a view of modification or dependency on militia is not held by a majority of scholars who have studied the Second Amendment.

BTW, how is one "terrified" by another if there is no evidence of that person having a gun; presumably the object of that "terror?"

[Starboard Tack]

62. The right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state by having a well regulated militia

has nothing to do with carrying a concealed handgun for personal self defense. On the contrary, it could be argued that the proliferation of handguns on the streets has a negative effect on the security of the state.
Who are this "majority of scholars" you mention? It hardly takes a scholar to study the Second Amendment, just a twisted interpretation to satisfy a right wing libertarian agenda.

I have no idea why anyone would be terrified, but some people are terrified of the dark and would be muggers and rapists that they can't see except in their paranoid imagination.

[Simo 1939_1940]

63. "On the contrary, it could be argued that the proliferation of handguns on the streets

has a negative effect on the security of the state."

You could argue that the moon is made of green cheese too......and you'd be no more of an ass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172791#post8

[Starboard Tack]

81. Are you calling me an ass?

[SteveW]

80. Sorry, but the "Right of the people" is operative in the Bill of Rights...

Again, the militia clause is stating the interests of the Feds as outlined in the Articles.

Most of the Constitution's rights have very little specificity as to things and practices. Heaven forbid, that our free speech rights would be hamstrung by using a wooden "press."

Similarly, "The people's rights to keep and bear arms" does not specify "concealed carry," it just says "bear." States have latitude, should they choose to act, in specifying that an arm shall be concealed or carried openly or both. But they cannot ban either and not run afoul of the "bear arms" part of the Constitution.

You can always argue "the proliferation of handguns on the streets has a negative effect on the security of the state," but there has to be some kind of reasoning behind this, esp. in light of falling crime rates.

"It hardly takes a scholar to study the Second Amendment, just a twisted interpretation to satisfy a right wing libertarian agenda."

The usual poppycock. Believe me, gun-controllers would wear the intellectual banner if they could, and many still try to do so; you know, the stuff gun-controllers post here every day.

"The mainstream scholarly interpretation of the Second Amendment--what I have been calling the Standard Model--has thus succeeded in making clear the meaning of a text that many modern readers may find unclear."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

[Atypical Liberal]

20. On fear.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun. These are folks who for the most part do not enter dangerous neighborhoods, do not carry large amounts of cash, and lead perfectly normal lives. Yet, their fear of that highly unlikely attack is so great they decide a gun is the answer, in spite of evidence and commonsense to the contrary.

I have smoke detectors in every bedroom of my home, and in my living room. Does this mean I am really fearful of fire? I wear seatbelts every time I get in my car. I did this from the first day I learned to drive, well before it was required by law. Does this mean I am really fearful of car accidents? I have a spare tire in my car. Does this mean I am really fearful of flat tires? I have a set of tools in my RV. Does this mean I am really fearful of breaking down?

Of course not.

Man is a tool-using creature. He has developed tools that allow him to overcome problems that he encounters in life. Some of the problems are rare, but devastating when you experience them. Since the tools to mitigate these problems are so cheap, many people decide that it is just prudent to buy and keep such tools ready in the rare instance they may need them.

Carrying a firearm is no different.

Now comes a female student who says she's "terrified" of guys like that. Is this worthy of being mocked? Does this indicate that she's the unreasonable one?

Absolutely. One need only look at the data that has been posted here many times before - CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. In addition, if you know that you are in the company of a CCW permit holder, then you KNOW that person has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent, has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and has never been convicted of a disqualifying felony.

If any rational person had a choice of being surrounded by random citizens or being surrounded by armed CCW permit holders, you would be far, far, far safer to choose being surrounded by the CCW permit holders.

[ileus]

29. write your congressman and have people that look wrong to you locked up.

[Scout]

35. nah, i'll just carry concealed and shoot the ones that scare me. locking 'em up costs the taxpayers

after all.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. .

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun. These are folks who for the most part do not enter dangerous neighborhoods, do not carry large amounts of cash, and lead perfectly normal lives...

That's quite the fact-free assumption; particularly in the wake of the McDonald and Heller cases.

[SteveW]

57. My goodness, are you irony-deficient?

From the OP:

Jardis would not say if he was carrying a concealed firearm. Instead, he said several times, “I just want to point out that no one knows if I’m carrying a gun.’’

“Yeah, and that’s terrifying,’’ replied one female student.

_________________
Really, Mike, you try to inoculate yourself, but fail. I've attended two major universities 50,000+ students, and no one was "terrified" by somebody walking by who may or may not have had a gun. Further, you seem extremely fearful yourself, despite your standard-issue attacks on others as being Masters of Deceit. I mean, "Look at the guy..." "Timothy McVeigh intensity..." "What's he remind you of..." and that splot of brilliance: "I realize reading facial expressions is not an exact science..."

This is your argument? I'll have to hit the john at little earlier than I anticipated!