In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment states “Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Here we learn that we have a constitutional right to own and carry guns, but with this right comes a big responsibility.
Licenses and permits are often supplied to those who wish to carry guns with them at all times, but there still are places that are off-limits to firearms, a couple being schools and universities. Licensed holders are trained and adequately educated but are still forbidden to carry their weapons on campus. Why? Firearms should be allowed on campus. There is no problem with it, if they are licensed or have a permit. Of course there should be limits, rules and regulations that apply to the holder, such as keeping it out of public view, or not using without a good cause, etc.
Maybe we should make it harder for someone to get a license, by doing background checks and requiring grueling classes. I feel that if a person is trained accurately they should have the convenience and privilege to carry a gun onto campus property.
Lauren Halbert
Gilbert
downtownresident posted at 11:23 am on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
What planet have you been living on??????????????????????????????
" Licensed holders are trained and adequately educated " is the biggest crock I've ever heard. In Arizona you only need to be alive to carry a concealed weapon.
Licenses are issued without any real training at all.
I can't believe that the editors even published this FALSE uninformed mindless tripe.
You are completely ignorant of reality.
Slabside posted at 6:20 pm on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
@downtownreject, "Licenses are issued without any real training at all."
Sorry you fool but you are 20lbs. of manure stuffed into a 5lb. bag. I have a CCW and I received considerable training in the process of obtaining it.
By your many posts you are proving yourself the mother and father of all things ignorant and quite the douche bag.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:14 pm on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Lauren,
Perhaps the largest group of gun toting well trained carriers are police. And few police would agree with you. I wonder why?
I, too advicate training, but probably more training than do you. And I advocate requiring those who carry to also be insured. Just imagine what might have happened last year in Tucson if that young man who came running out of the drug store in response to hearing those 30 rounds fire off had not stopped to think twice when he saw a man putting the gun down. He easily could have killed the man who disarmed Laughner!
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:07 pm on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
A Driver's License isn't a "right", but you do need to pass a test for it. Personally, I think too many people that drive shouldn't be driving.
Guns are a right, however, I also believe one should be trained in using them as well. Like a car, in the wrong hands, a gun can easily kill when there was no intent to.
Rich posted at 10:04 pm on Sat, Mar 3, 2012.
Dale,
For many years I have outshot police using a bow. They aren't good with guns and if competence where a requirement to carry them, they would be the first to be disarmed. Point it at the chest and empty it? Let me nock an arrow and you're a dead man. That's why I hunt Vekol. Got a nice fat piggy, I'm currently marinating. I'm not afraid of an AK47. When I shoot, I hit what I'm aiming at. Most police don't, in fact can't. With modern guns, they should be more accurate than a 50 pound recurve, they aren't. I don't have a gun, don't want one, it just reminds me of Marines who tried to teach me to use one.
Lauren, most people who carry shouldn't. The problem is that most people who should, don't.
davidflucier posted at 5:45 am on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
@Rich: You got to be kidding! Target practice is a long way from a live fire, tactical shooting scenario. Comparing your bow to a hand gun is ludicrous. And in your scenario where you "outshoot" the police, no one is shooting back at you.
I have a gun in my hand by my side and you have your bow in your hand by your side. Now count to three and activate your weapon. Who wins?
Hand guns are deadly weapons and people who want to carry them should be as least as trained as the police...that's the standard of care one should require, but in Arizona, there is no requirement to train and remain certified.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:56 am on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Rich,
davidflucier is right. Your example is largely irrelevant. First, who but you practices with a bow? Second, the sort of training needed is not marksmanship, but responsibility.
For upward of 5 years, I worked as a commissioned officer in the US Army's Explosive Ordnance Disposal organization, first as a unit commander, then as an executive officer. I knew my stuff. As the son of a mining engineer and as a chemistry undergraduate, nothing "taught" me in EOD school was really new. Sure I learned the new applications, the ordnance. But as far as handling explosives in an emergency situation, I knew more than I was taught.
On one of my first incidents, I knew how to determine whether some sticks of dynamite found on site in advance of the Vice President's arrival were still potent. None of my men had ever field tested dynamite for nitroglycerin potency before. I taught my men that trick, I taught the men in my second unit that trick, and I taught the men in those 9 northeastern states that trick when I was promoted to executive officer.
It was not training that prepared me. It was experience. And no amount of field experience had prepared my men to do what I, a bran new shave tail second lieutenant, did in 15 seconds of heads up thinking. You see, I had never field tested nitro before either! But I knew how nitro tasted and I had learned that I get migrains from tasting it.
Cops who carry side arms think about their reactions to situations they might encounter when on duty. And that thinking helps prepare them. Their non-marksmanship training establishes an underpinning for these thought processes. And their employer stands behind them, should they mess up. No amount of experience by a mere second amendment rights side arms carrier can compare or approach this sort of experience.
No folks. the second amendment does not protect you. The police protect you!
Rational Human posted at 8:24 am on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
This letter and most of your comments miss the point entirely. We have a right! End of story! If you don't like it then go, run, hide, wear a bullet proof body condom! I really don't care what you do except that you should stop trying to subvert the US Constitution. Go to Canada or Mexico where they don't have the right to bear arms.
sockratties posted at 10:22 am on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Dale, you make a good point about the insurance. Anyone should opt to be covered in this litigious society. Right or wrong you're gonna get sued if you shoot someone. Even if you win you'll spend your life paying off the bottom feeding lawyers.
Rich: Thanks for the mental picture. I can just see a campus of students walking around with bows and quivers across their backs. Will they have to wear tights and felt hats too? Who's going to teach them that the pointy end goes toward the bad guy and the feathers toward them?
Slabmore: You may have received considerable training, and that's good, but you didn't have too. You could have just bought it and learned by trial and error. It's the error that I worry about.
Rat Human: Gun ownership is a right, but so is freedom of speech. No American should have to go to Canada or Mexico to express an opinion,. Your denouncing someone for doing so is unpatriotic.
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:36 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Rich: Believe it or not, I can hit targets with a pistol at a range that some can't hit with a rifle. I am also very good with a rifle, and shotgun. Funny thing, I could never master the bow! I can hit the broad side of a barn well enough!!!
Rich posted at 2:30 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Mr666,
Some people are very good with a gun, others with other things. The difference, I expect is in an ingrained technique. An archer jerks his fingers off the bowstring, if he doesn't the shot is inconsistent bumping over the fingertips. A trigger needs to be squeezed, if it is jerked it throws the aim off. My father, a gunnery officer in WWII could sign his name with a .50 caliber machine gun. I can hit the side of a barn, barely. In my experience police are rather bad at handling and shooting pistols, the idea of them protecting me is laughable. I don't think things are dangerous enough to carry guns around. However, it is part of the foundation of the country and the government that the right to do so isn't abridged. When it is, government, and police have far too much power and power corrupts.
Slabside posted at 2:30 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
Rich & Master, I too am proficient with my handguns. Especially with the extra weight of a 30 round magazine inserted [wink].
Slabside posted at 3:33 pm on Sun, Mar 4, 2012.
@Sock, "Slabmore: You may have received considerable training, and that's good, but you didn't have too. You could have just bought it and learned by trial and error. It's the error that I worry about."
Yeah, could have but didn't. I've maintained my license ever since DPS started issuing them. You worry about trial error on your side sock. I'm just fine (and legally armed).
Rational Human posted at 5:15 am on Mon, Mar 5, 2012.
Sock Rat, I never suggested anyone should have to go to Canada or Mexico to express an opinion. This is America where we have constitutional rights. If you don't like that, as I suggested, you have the option to try to subvert the constitution or move to a country that supports your view. Go rattle your rat at someone else demotard.
arguementsdontsolve posted at 3:15 pm on Tue, Mar 6, 2012.
you guys are all missing the point. she says that the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and continues to observe that that is not actually entirely the case. we have the right to bear arms unless you walk onto Government property such as public schools, post offices ect. i think that she means that this is unconstitutional, NOT that everyone with a gun is well trained. im sure that she knows that not everyone that has or carries a gun can sign there name with it at 50 yards, and not everyone is capable of gaining that particular level of skill. I think that the point of her letter was to state a fact that the second amendment says we can bear arms, but that we are not actually allowed to in many instances, and she offers a very reasonable solution, making it harder to get a liscence or gun. but thats not the solution. the fact of the matter is bad guys will get guns or weapons regardless of the law. it has actually been tested in lots of countries (look at places like mexico, gun violence is out the roof. and they're illegal) the best solution (and its a proven one to) is to issue guns and/or weapons and train everyone to use them. if you want to kill someone and you have a gun where are you going to go, a school? or a poloce station? its a fact. training everyone to use weapons reduces crime because then the bad guys who want to kill people either, think better of it because they know everyone has a gun, or they are stopped very quickly because everyone has a gun. more laws only makes more criminals. more knowledge and skill on a mass scale makes a safer environment because everyone knows how to defend themselves.