Total Votes: 113
Current users sign in here.
I saw tv new item about the bill. Seems as how it not only allows guns on campus but also REQUIRES the college to have GUN LOCKERS!
Apparently student would be allowed to carry the gun to the building then have to put it in a locker?
Now that does a heck of a lot of good. A locked up gun is really going to help if a nut comes on campus and starts shooting things up.
Looks to me like some Legislator has stock in a company that makes gun lockers.
Stupid stupid stoopid bill being pushed by even dumber legislators.
It's still early. Only 23 of us have voted. Looks like Willie and I voted in the majority again. 65% think this legislation sucks!
After 53 votes, 74% have shown an estounding unanimity on this issue. But understand folks, the NRA is a lobbying activity, perhaps the most influencial on K street. So don't expect our legislators to be listening to us. Money talks. And guns are not cheap!
While I still see no benefits from allowing guns on campus, I do see benefit in discussing this issue. Where 3 out of 4 agree that guns have no place on campus, when this legislation does pass, 3 out of 4 will see just how little their vote counts!
Sorry Dale, this is Aridzona where the heat dries peoples brains out. [sad]
Only one out of the 4 will vote against the Republican incumbents. The rest will mindlessly keep voting Republican.
64 votes in and the % seeing no value to guns on campus still hovers around 74.
No, Willie, When this law passes, dried out brains or not, there will be no excuses for failing to see how powerful NRA money is to buy off policians. The Super PAC controversy is just to great. And while the NRA is not technically a Super PAC, the principle of money in politics still applies.
And I might just have to take offense at your statement about mindlessly voting Republican. I am a registered Republican. I get to vote for Buddy Romer but you don't! Buddy's theme this year is getting the money out of politics. And since he doesn't have any money, he's leading the way on that crusade!
While the concept of arming the populace for prtoection is a reasonable and interesting one, arming a bunch of college kids who for some odd reason love to drink, fight, argue, and have sex preferably before and after class, is a real dumb move. I've taught on a half dozen campuses around the nation and I would be scared shi..less if these young monkeys were armed. Unlike the NRA, I feel that gun ownership belongs to those who are mature enough to make correct decisions about it's use when the time comes, not a bunch of goofy 18-21 year olds.
Right you are. Why even that young man who last year in Tucson came running out from the Drug Store pistol in hand, admitted that he almost shot the man in whose hand he saw a pistol. That man had just disarmed Laughner! It takes training, experience and brains to know how to handle emergencies. Yet, now we see a slight trend away from these virtues in our survey. We're down to 69% rational thinkers.
In our back and forth discussion of another topic on this site, we have some neo-cons advocating that their rights compel dog owners to always leash their dogs in public. They argue that dogs are occasionally dangerous and we owners cannot guarantee their safety and cannot be depended upon to compensate for damages. Yet these same so called conservatives argue that arming naive college students and not keeping them on the leash somehow makes sense.
Let's leash college students by keeping guns off campus. I have no problem with allowing either air line pilots or college instructorstors to be discretely armed. The occasional dog bit does not compare with the all too frequent gun shot wound.
But the amazing thing is that these neo-cons cannot see how inconsistent their arguments are. True conservatives have principles from which they develop positions on the issues. Neo-cons have issues [often first derived in conservative think tanks] upon which big business has mandated their positions.
Notice how the questions are phrased. On the one hand we have the principle that "people should be able to protect themselves at all times," an English common law notion that predated the Second Amendment justification of maintaining a volunteer militia.
And on the other hand we have "college campuses should remain gun free," your thought precisely. You observe that arming students is not necessarily consistent with self-protection. Training and experience are needed to go hand in had with second amendment rights notions of self-protection.
The moderate sees room for compromise. The true conservative applies conservative principles and comes to any number of conclusions, depending upon the weight he or she gives to each applying principle. Historically no one has armed kids. Traditionally [traditional approaches are a conservative principle] parents protect children and when children are in school, they expect the school teachers to protect their children. So I join in suggesting that perhaps teachers might chose to be discretely armed. I'm a true conservative, not a neo-con.
But the neo-cons, having no principles upon which to turn, just take up the theme of self-protection by the individual, no matter how young, and go overboard to allow, even encourage, every man, woman and child to be armed, even one Jared Laughner, armed with an automatic pistol with a 30+ round managine!
After the latest bill failed to pass through the Senate, do you feel there will be any more attempts at mandating more background checks for gun purchases?
Total Votes: 643
Guest commentary by Phil Kerpen
Guest Commentary by Jim Lynskey and Brian Glaister
Guest Commentary by Tom Patterson
By Mark Scarp, contributing columnist
Guest Commentary by Michael Reagan
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications