Barred for life from Ball State for doing something Legal

[ATM]

Well, the 2nd Amendment was nice while it lasted. The people that don't own a firearm are not doing as much damage to our 2nd Amendment Rights as the people with firearms. Flaunt it if you got it, you have the Right.... for now.

So, you really do think this way? It wasn't just me twisting your comments?

I think you have some explaining to do.

 

[rhino]

Doing something like open carry because you have the right doesn't necessarily make it right. Carrying on a campus, ANY CAMPUS, is generally considered TABOO virtually everywhere in this Country due to recent history in the past decade. So, why do it? If you get slapped for doing it then man-up because you basically deserved it. Common sense needs to prevail if any of us expect to keep the 2nd Amendment in tact. We have a right to carry but at the same time we need to respect those that do not carry. If concealing your weapon in some areas is all that is needed to keep the peace then out of sight=out of mind seems to be more fruitful than throwing a tantrum in the eyes of the public. Flame On!

No, it's not. People have been carrying on college, high school, and elementary school campuses in Utah for years. The law the prevents schools at all levels (excepts private schools) from enacting policies that impeded lawful carry of firearms. How many problems has that caused?

 

[RMC]

So, you really do think this way? It wasn't just me twisting your comments?

I think you have some explaining to do.

Think what way??? What exactly are you trying to twist my comments into now?

 

[Dbeasley2771]

As a student at IUPUI we are allowed to keep our weapons in our vehicles in the parking garage. However, I know people who carry concealed on a daily basis. For me, I am afraid of being "banned" from campus if caught. A large majority of my education would be wasted because I wouldn't be able to continue my degree.

 

[RMC]

No, it's not. People have been carrying on college, high school, and elementary school campuses in Utah for years. The law the prevents schools at all levels (excepts private schools) from enacting policies that impeded lawful carry of firearms. How many problems has that caused?

Are you saying you or someone you know carry exposed firearms in our public schools here in Indy? I thought that was against the law? Are there areas you wouldn't walk through in the middle of the night? Why is that? You have the Right don't you?

 

[ghuns]

It's only been a month. Give it time. I guarantee you some kid will go off eventually...

This is what has been said over and over by every gun control advocate as more and more states passed concealed carry, constitutional carry, or generally expanded gun rights.

It'll be the wild west

The streets will run red with blood

Every simple disagreement will turn into a shootout

 

[Dbeasley2771]

This is what has been said over and over by every gun control advocate as more and more states passed concealed carry, constitutional carry, or generally expanded gun rights.

It'll be the wild west

The streets will run red with blood

Every simple disagreement will turn into a shootout

The majority of students that would be carrying would be the ones who have permits and are law abiding citizens. But what stops a student right now from walking into a classroom (which I am writing this post from) and shooting students and teachers. As has been said many times, "Criminals don't care about laws".

 

[Cameramonkey]

Are you saying you or someone you know carry exposed firearms in our public schools here in Indy? I thought that was against the law? Are there areas you wouldn't walk through in the middle of the night? Why is that? You have the Right don't you?

No he is saying people in UTAH have been carrying for years with no problems.

 

[bwframe]

...what stops a student right now from walking into a classroom (which I am writing this post from) and shooting students and teachers...

What will stop them is the possibility that they themselves will be shot. Active shooters only operate in gun free zones. They are cowards like that.

 

[Dbeasley2771]

What will stop them is the possibility that they themselves will be shot. Active shooters only operate in gun free zones. They are cowards like that.

Of course, but here at good ole leftist IUPUI only cops have guns (and the bad guys). For over 15 hours a week I don't have the "privilege" to protect myself in-class. What will it take to get it changed? A mass shooting?

 

[bwframe]

Of course, but here at good ole leftist IUPUI only cops have guns (and the bad guys). For over 15 hours a week I don't have the "privilege" to protect myself in-class. What will it take to get it changed? A mass shooting?

Luckily not at IUPUI, but mass shootings have not changed anything, only added restrictions for law abiding gun carriers.

What we need to do as a state is pass campus carry laws, barring gun free zones on all publicly funded campuses.

 

[Dbeasley2771]

Luckily not at IUPUI, but mass shootings have not changed anything, only added restrictions for law abiding gun carriers.

What we need to do as a state is pass campus carry laws, barring gun free zones on all publicly funded campuses.

I absolutely agree!! But the legislature has tried and failed once or twice to pass a law like the Texas Camps Carry law. My hope is that with Texas joining in with campus carry it begins conversations and acts of change for "less" conservative states like Indiana.

 

[ATM]

Think what way??? What exactly are you trying to twist my comments into now?

You think citizens bearing arms can and will have some impact on the amendment which prohibits government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms.

I find that notion ridiculous without quite a bit of further explanation from you.

 

[bwframe]

I absolutely agree!! But the legislature has tried and failed once or twice to pass a law like the Texas Camps Carry law. My hope is that with Texas joining in with campus carry it begins conversations and acts of change for "less" conservative states like Indiana.

We need more of you students leading the charge and rattling cages to get this done. Talk to your friends, family and whoever will listen. I went to an IU "Students for Campus Carry" event. There were maybe a dozen students there, maybe.

You need to be organizing and talking to legislators now.

 

[RMC]

You think citizens bearing arms can and will have some impact on the amendment which prohibits government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms.

I find that notion ridiculous without quite a bit of further explanation from you.

Prejudice is a factor that needs to be considered in many controversial situations. A lot of people are against guns, especially handguns and military-looking semi-automatic weapons (mistakenly perceived as assault weapons), yet they have very limited knowledge of guns or the reasons why people have them. However, they have had their brains saturated with the Liberals ranting that everything bad that happens is the result of the tool rather than the person that used it. To me, guns are no different than many other things that the Government has already infringed on. We are told we can't smoke, we can't exceed a specified speed limit, hell, in South Dakota you can't even ride a horse on State game production areas (public hunting land) without getting written permission in advance. Basically, laws are made because somebody complained about something. That is why some guns are illegal in some States and all guns are illegal in other places. There are far more people complaining about guns and their negative impacts on society than there are gun owners defending the benefits of owning a gun within society. Or at least that's the way the media and politicians are playing it. The media and politicians will use anything they can to show gun owners are bad people, even if they have to spin the facts in their favor.

I'm not defending any kind of gun control unless it's the range one can consistantly drop a prairie dog. However, I will not support anyone that chooses to open carry in a place that will likely bring the ire of the general public down on all gun owners. Do you dislike Kaepernick sitting during the National Anthem? I do. He has the Right to sit and many Americans sacrificed their lives to provide that Right but that doesn't mean I have to like it. You can't carry a firearm into a Colts game but I bet most of the INGO group support the Colts by watching their games. Flip the coin and you'll find mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends of people that died from a gunshot that will get very vocal when someone with a gun invades their perceived space even if it's on public property. Why provide the fuel to a fight that will only lead to more negative results?

Citizens that have guns CAN and DO have an impact on our 2nd Amendment. Saying or thinking they don't is absolutely absurd. 40 years ago I wasn't aware of guns being illegal in any State or city. Now look at New York, New Jersey, Chigago, California... I'm guessing all the guns that caused the Government to impose restrictions/laws in those areas were owned by a law abiding citizen at some point. If you are saying that only illegal guns are the problem then please show us all what an illegal gun looks like compared to a legal gun. If the average person can tell the difference 100% of the time at a reasonable distance then there should never be any restrictions that the Government would support. Wasn't there a business in Indy that had a truck loaded with a lot of guns that was left outside overnight and the contents got stolen? I'm sure the owner(s) were legal gun owners. Wasn't there a law officer that killed his family and a few others last year? I'm sure that person was a legal gun owner up until the point he/she chose to use it illegally. My point is, guns of any kind scare the hell out of some people and there is no way of being sure who has or doesn't have malicious intent. If a gun owner chooses to ignore that fact or deliberately goes against the wishes of the establishment they are in, then that person has the potential of screwing all of us with their poor judgement. There are countless examples of the good and bad of being able to get and carry a firearm. Unfortunately, the numbers of those that seek and broadcast the bad outnumber those of us that know better. "Choose your battles wisely so you don't lose the war" does have its merits.

 

[ATM]

...Citizens that have guns CAN and DO have an impact on our 2nd Amendment. Saying or thinking they don't is absolutely absurd...

Aside from the blah blah and like/dislike, which is irrelevant, here's the crux of your misunderstanding.

Please explain how the citizens bearing arms have had an impact or in any way lessened the prohibition on infringement of our right.

That the prohibition has been ignored does not impact or lessen the prohibition (the actual amendment still stands as written, there is a process by which it could be repealed or rewritten).

It is your attempt to blame this on citizens bearing arms (we, the people, actually exercising these rights which shall not be infringed) that I find absolutely absurd. Try again.

 

[Cameramonkey]

ATM, I believe he is talking about jackwagons like this actively fondling weapons in public:

LOTS of people on both sides of the debate took issue with how they (and others carrying similarly) were carrying, resulting in a less than positive impact on the movement. Just like the Westboro folks arent exactly poster children for positive 1A use.

It is possible to exercise a right in such a way that it does not actually further your cause.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Prejudice is a factor that needs to be considered in many controversial situations. A lot of people are against guns, especially handguns and military-looking semi-automatic weapons (mistakenly perceived as assault weapons), yet they have very limited knowledge of guns or the reasons why people have them. However, they have had their brains saturated with the Liberals ranting that everything bad that happens is the result of the tool rather than the person that used it. To me, guns are no different than many other things that the Government has already infringed on. We are told we can't smoke, we can't exceed a specified speed limit, hell, in South Dakota you can't even ride a horse on State game production areas (public hunting land) without getting written permission in advance. Basically, laws are made because somebody complained about something. That is why some guns are illegal in some States and all guns are illegal in other places. There are far more people complaining about guns and their negative impacts on society than there are gun owners defending the benefits of owning a gun within society. Or at least that's the way the media and politicians are playing it. The media and politicians will use anything they can to show gun owners are bad people, even if they have to spin the facts in their favor.

I'm not defending any kind of gun control unless it's the range one can consistantly drop a prairie dog. However, I will not support anyone that chooses to open carry in a place that will likely bring the ire of the general public down on all gun owners. Do you dislike Kaepernick sitting during the National Anthem? I do. He has the Right to sit and many Americans sacrificed their lives to provide that Right but that doesn't mean I have to like it. You can't carry a firearm into a Colts game but I bet most of the INGO group support the Colts by watching their games. Flip the coin and you'll find mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends of people that died from a gunshot that will get very vocal when someone with a gun invades their perceived space even if it's on public property. Why provide the fuel to a fight that will only lead to more negative results?

Citizens that have guns CAN and DO have an impact on our 2nd Amendment. Saying or thinking they don't is absolutely absurd. 40 years ago I wasn't aware of guns being illegal in any State or city. Now look at New York, New Jersey, Chigago, California... I'm guessing all the guns that caused the Government to impose restrictions/laws in those areas were owned by a law abiding citizen at some point. If you are saying that only illegal guns are the problem then please show us all what an illegal gun looks like compared to a legal gun. If the average person can tell the difference 100% of the time at a reasonable distance then there should never be any restrictions that the Government would support. Wasn't there a business in Indy that had a truck loaded with a lot of guns that was left outside overnight and the contents got stolen? I'm sure the owner(s) were legal gun owners. Wasn't there a law officer that killed his family and a few others last year? I'm sure that person was a legal gun owner up until the point he/she chose to use it illegally. My point is, guns of any kind scare the hell out of some people and there is no way of being sure who has or doesn't have malicious intent. If a gun owner chooses to ignore that fact or deliberately goes against the wishes of the establishment they are in, then that person has the potential of screwing all of us with their poor judgement. There are countless examples of the good and bad of being able to get and carry a firearm. Unfortunately, the numbers of those that seek and broadcast the bad outnumber those of us that know better. "Choose your battles wisely so you don't lose the war" does have its merits.

You don't see a contradiction here? In one sentence, you say the gun is a tool and nothing more. In the other sentence, you say the gun "caused" the government to enact laws? How'd it do that? As far as I know, none of my guns has ever voted.

 

[RMC]

Aside from the blah blah and like/dislike, which is irrelevant, here's the crux of your misunderstanding.

Please explain how the citizens bearing arms have had an impact or in any way lessened the prohibition on infringement of our right.

That the prohibition has been ignored does not impact or lessen the prohibition (the actual amendment still stands as written, there is a process by which it could be repealed or rewritten).

It is your attempt to blame this on citizens bearing arms (we, the people, actually exercising these rights which shall not be infringed) that I find absolutely absurd. Try again.

Now you are just rambling and going off on a tangent that doesn't make any sense. I have said nothing about disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment nor would I. The 2nd Amendment is in jeopardy of being repealed or rewritten and the lobbying behind it is very influential and increasingly popular. If legal gun owners didn't have anything to do with the situations that are causing the anti-gun movement then what in your opinion is??? I'm just being the devil's advocate here in hope of getting some to think before acting if their actions can jeopardize our Rights. Thinking that Public Opinion has no horses in this race is being delusional. Guns are not inherently evil and I'm not saying legal gun owners are solely to blame or anything like that. Most guns legally belong to somebody at the time they are made. In most cases the ownership transfers to numerous other entities until reaching the end users which are most likely legal as well. Somewhere along the line an owner goes nuts, the gun is stolen, or it gets sold to a not-so-nice person and a crime gets committed. The anti-gun enthusiasts are using this very approach to hold manufactures, dealers, gun shows, etc. liable for everything a gun may have been involved in. That's bad enough but when we as gun owners go against the grain of the Public Opinion and make a stand in the Public Eye, on Public Land or property not belonging to us, it has no positive outcome. I can't for the life of me understand why you can't comprehend this. I'm not saying nor have I ever said that I agreed with this but you continuously insist that I have. A gun is a tool that can yield deadly force in a fraction of a second at a distance, and many of the people that do not own guns feel fear when they see someone with one. Like it or not, that is a fact of life. Therefore, it is easily twisted to be portrayed as a blatant threat. If you want to be the one to walk proudly through Walmart showing everyone you have a loaded weapon then go for it. I will again voice my opinion and I don't want to hear any whining when your gun is taken away.

 

[RMC]

You don't see a contradiction here? In one sentence, you say the gun is a tool and nothing more. In the other sentence, you say the gun "caused" the government to enact laws? How'd it do that? As far as I know, none of my guns has ever voted.

Sorry if my post is confusing. I too would be surprised and impressed if your guns voted. If I give mine a name can I register it to vote, or does that only work for Liberals? I guess I should have use purple for the 2nd highlighted quote. I thought the subsequent text would have clarified that.