Five New Jersey college students were injured, one critically, when a gunman opened fire at an off-campus party near Seton Hall University Friday night.
Five New Jersey college students were injured, one critically, when a gunman opened fire at an off-campus party near Seton Hall University Friday night.
So CCW on campus is not a good idea because people were shot off campus?
ReplyDeleteCan you make even less sense or is this about it?
A man was killed with a shovel in Paraguay last week so I am going to go stop my nephew from digging a hole for my new shrubbery. Its for the children.
Here's what probably happened.
ReplyDeleteMan tries to crash frat party. Liquor-soaked frat boys rough him up, toss him. Man returns with gun.
Kids, alcohol, guns.
Great read, Jade.
ReplyDeleteSo, if that is what happened, how can CCW on campus be a bad idea, since CCW on campus had nothing to do with it?
Sooooo . . . how's that Brady Campaign #1 and #2 ranking workin' out for ya'?
ReplyDeleteWhat this off-campus incident has to do with CCW on campuses is that the guys involved in this are the same kinds who frequent on-campus fraternities and events.
ReplyDelete"the guys involved in this are the same kinds who frequent on-campus fraternities and events."
ReplyDeleteWhich is why the law-abiding, legally-of-age, campus bound students want to have a concealed carry permit. Because people like this are out there committing crimes, on campus and sometimes near campus.
Speaking of New Jersey, who would ever have expected a New Jersey Democrat to sponsor a "shall issue" concealed carry bill?
ReplyDelete[NJ state Senator Jeff Van] Drew's legislation would allow New Jersey residents to carry handguns if they first go through a vigorous background check, complete courses in firearms safety and the lawful use of force, pass a test and pay an annual $500 fee.
The law, loosely based on statutes in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, would serve to relax what is now a pretty strict handgun "carry law" on the books. Significantly, Drew's legislation would do away with current language in the law that says residents must present "a justifiable need to carry a handgun."
Of course, for proposing that people pay $500 (annually), he deserves to have to be present while his kids are chopped into little pieces with machetes, but since I'm in a polite mood, I won't insist that his eyelids be cut off with an X-Acto knife beforehand--so he can shut his eyes, and only hear their screams.
Text of the bill can be seen here.
Well the $500 a year sounds pretty reasonable to me. Who else is gonna pay for hosing down the streets each time one of those CCW guys springs into action.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWell the $500 a year sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Of course it sounds "pretty reasonable" to you--restricting self-defense to the wealthy always make sense to those who think a "war on poverty" means killing off the poor.
I still wonder how the licensing (exorbitantly priced licensing, no less) will stand Constitutional scrutiny, in light of Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Granted, SCOTUS has not yet indicated that it realizes that the "bear[ing]" part of "keep and bear arms" is just as protected by the Second Amendment as the "keep[ing]" part is, and has actually indicated an unwillingness to recognize that said protection extends to concealed carry, but at some point, permit-free open carry must become the law of the land.