Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Why Guns Aren't Allowed On Campus

 University of Tennessee:

Butt-chugging???  Really?

Look, I realize this is where InstaCracker Glenn Reynolds "teaches," but it really appears Tennessee students have a great deal of difficulty understanding what end the booze goes down.

And you want these kids to carry guns?

Say, doesn't Jonathan Clark Sullivan live in Tennessee?


  1. Green Goblin, it's not about allowing everyone to carry a gun. We're talking about people with licenses here. To get a license, you have to be twenty-one years old. You have to have a clean record. In most states, you have to pass a written and a skills test.

    The people who will have licenses for the most part will be older students who have put this foolishness behind them (figuratively, not literally!) or members of the faculty and staff.

    A little bit of rationality would help you a lot.

    1. Nobody said anything about allowing everyone to carry a gun. Why do you have to exaggerate every single thing?

    2. Green Goblin implied that allowing concealed carry on campus would include these knuckleheads. That's the exaggeration, and I corrected it.

  2. Greggy, allow me to sagely correct some of your errors.

    First, many college students are 21 (or older). As we note, the drinking age is 21, yet it's pretty apparent that most college students have little problem getting booze.

    Second, it's simply false that one has to have a clean record. To be accurate, one cannot be a felon which is hugely different than having a clean record.

    Third, I'd bet the mortgage that it was the older students who probably thought a Merlot enema was a wonderful way of welcoming the younger students into the frat.

    1. I find it rather interesting, that like college campuses, citizens homes typically contain some form of alcohol. You argue for the prohibition of small arms on campuses, yet make no statement for this right to civilian disarmament (to a safe society, and ultimately, security to ones life) to be extended to the greater society, and ensured by the general prohibition of the possession of small arms (as well as other deadly devices) by mere civilians.

    2. Green Goblin, my errors?

      1. "To sagely correct" is a split infinitive. "Different" is supposed to be followed by "from" not by "than." If you're going to attempt to correct me, at least try to use correct English in doing so.

      2. You asked if we want to allow "these kids" to carry guns. Someone over twenty-one years of age is hardly a kid.

      3. If they can get alcohol, what's to stop them from getting guns? A carry license demonstrates intent to abide by the law.

      4. You control freaks have odd definitions for terms, but a clean record with regard to a carry license means no felony or violent misdemeanor convictions. What does a clean record mean to you?

      5. If this story is true, I don't care what age the idiot was. Fools of that nature will find ways to do stupid things, regardless of the laws.

    3. E.N., my home has both, and no amount of begging or cajoling from you will change that. You argue for a "right to civilian disarmament." What the hell is that? There is no right to disarm citizens. In fact, governments have no rights whatsoever. They have powers, and in this country, we insist on strict limitations of those powers.

    4. Greg's assertion that "idiots" will obtain guns is true, so long as those guns are generally available. Laws can change that fact.

      Also Greg, I think that you will find my post, (which is currently directly above yours) to be rather infuriating. If you READ it and use that little bit of gelatinous cranial fat between your ears, you just may learn something.

    5. Greg,

      Do you own, or ever have come in to contact with the (current) U.S. Constitution?

      If so, I suggest that you read it.

      The preamble states that government has obligations.
      Obligations such as to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". In order for the government to achieve such goals, the government must take reasonable measures to ensure that state actors have a monopoly on the use of force (small arms).

    6. E.N., the framers of our Constitution were not idiots. If they had wanted to ban civilian ownership and carry of firearms, they could have written the document to call for that. But being intelligent people with a keen sense of the dangers of government, they didn't write it the way that you wish.

      But let's look at the ideas of domestic tranquility and common defense. We have both. We have them because we believe in individual rights, not despite that belief. No nation in which the citizens are seen as belonging to the state can be tranquil, nor can it honestly claim to promote the welfare of its people.

      Regarding the comment that you asked me to read, I did read it. You are correct to say that it's infuriating. It's infuriating in the way that all willful stupidity is. The only thing to learn there is that you're a pompous ass who believes himself to be better than his fellow citizens. You're welcome to that, as I'm sure you don't require anyone else to support you in your narcissism.

    7. Greg, did you ever admit you were wrong about anything, ever?

    8. Greggy: Whether or not the framers of the Constitution were idiots or not is debatable. And let us not forget the 2A was written in such a way that to this day, the meaning is still unclear. After all, had the framers *could have written*: "Congress shall make no laws infringing on the ownership of firearms" or the like that would clearly define the right you imagine. But they did not. And if you consider the fact that Madison's original draft of the 2A had a decidedly military intent, it's pretty clear gun ownership was tied to military service.

      It's also a fantasy the framers believed in the dangers of government. What they truly feared was anarchism or mob rule. One need only read the Constitution's provisions concerning 'treason' to understand that.

    9. Mikeb, if you could ever show me that I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it. E.N. is dangerous. I don't mean that he's going to kill me from a mile away with his black helicopter. I mean that he advocates for the kind of view of society that leads straight to tyranny.

      But you really should learn to see that people can disagree about values without either having to be wrong in the sense that you mean. Arguing with E.N. isn't about facts. He doesn't debate on facts. He debates on the question of what kind of society we want. I say that he's morally wrong, but that's another matter.

      Green Goblin, the text is clear enough: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It would be strange if the word "people" means individuals everywhere else other than this one place where it means the state.

    10. Sadly, you're still wrong, Greggy. I shall sagely educate you.

      As we both know, the 2A contains another dozen or so words you chose to ignore. It's strange how you "constitutional scholars" keep missing them.

      Again, if the Founders really, really meant what you imagine--they were certainly smart enogh to craft a sentence that would be crystal clear. For example, they could have written: "The right of the people to bear firearms shall not be infringed."

      There. That sentence makes your fantasy undeniable. But the Founders didn't. Why?

      Here's Madison's original 2A: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

      When the Founders got together to debate this draft--they had no problems with it except for the "religiously scrupulous" clause which they thought could be used to exclude certain faiths from military service.

    11. Green Goblin, would you stop using the word "sagely"? You don't have to attach an adjective to everything.

      The militia was the explanation for needing that amendment, but the amendment itself identifies the right as belonging to the people. Consider the following:

      Vitamin C being necessary to the health of all, the right of the people to keep and eat lemons shall not be infringed.

      Health is given as the reason for enumerating the right, but does that statement mean that I can't put a lemon twist in a martini?

    12. Once more, Greggy, if the purpose of the 2A was to permit unfettered ownership of firearms--you don't need a preamble. For example, the 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, etc. don't provide reasons or explanations why they're desirable or needed. They merely state the right.

      The facts are on my side; as I've sagely noted, the 2A doesn't even specifically reference firearms--they use the term "arms" which is a military term.

    13. I'm still waiting for you to explain why the right is named as belonging to the people. Why not to the state? Why not to the militia? Whatever the justification, the right isn't limited. And yes, you are correct to observe that "arms" refers to all kinds of weapons, not just firearms. It meant any weapon that a person--actually, a gentleman--used individually.

      Fortunately, most states and most courts agree with my interpretation. Yours, adjective boy, is dying, even in control freak paradises.

    14. Greggy: You're still assuming the right in question refers to individual gun ownership not the right of the people to have an armed militia.

      You still ignore the fact that "arms" is a military term;it has nothing to do with self-defense, hunting or sport shooting. It has to do with equipment used in wars--firearms, artillery, aircraft, trucks, ships, etc.

      I'd not gloat too much about the courts agreeing with you. Had Bush not been illegitimately selected in 2001--Heller likely would never have taken place. The fact is the NRA never challenged any gun control law on the basis of its 2A constitutionality. The reason is they knew they would lose.

    15. Even if you support the Heller decision, you must admit that it is rather self-contradictory.

      It struck down the provision of the D.C. Firearm Control Regulations Act of 1975, which prohibited the registry of new handguns, and short barreled long-arms (registration of all firearms was required under a 1968 law)

      The ruling, while stating that a right to bear arms (such as handguns) in the confines of one's domicile, upheld prohibitions on the carrying of weapons, (particularly the concealment while doing such) in public areas.

      It is rather interesting that the court, while upholding carry and concealment prohibitions, (as they do not pertain to the sanctity of ones domicile)struck down legal sanctions against weapons designed manifestly for the purpose of public transport and concealment (handguns).

      I wonder if the various governments where to prohibit "firearms designed, manufactured or adapted, for the purpose of concealment" if the statutes would be found to be "unconstitutional".

      This would serve as a step toward realizing society's fundamental human right to civilian disarmament.

    16. E.N., society as a whole has no rights. Individuals have rights. How you've come to think otherwise is a mystery. The Heller and McDonald decisions were minimalist, to be sure, but they pointed in the right direction. More will come. In addition, Congress and most states are on my side of this issue.

      Green Goblin, yes, the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. So says the text, so says the Supreme Court, and so says good sense.

    17. To the one adorned with the moniker "Greg"......

      If individuals have rights, (as you so claim) where do those rights come from? Who or what endows you with any of those "rights" which you claim to be inalienable? What protects those rights from other entities (individual and non-individual)? Why do you believe that there is a human right to firearms, yet no right for the government to protect the innocent or feed the hungry? Why as you claim that U.S. citizens are endowed with this "right" while other Citizens of The World are not?

      More importantly why are you so obtuse as to make these ridiculous claims of the existence of rights which manifestly infringe on the rights of others.

      Here are some rights which other Citizens of the World are endowed with........

      Article 42. Right and duty to work

      Citizens of the ------'- -------- of ----- have the right as well as the duty to work.

      Through various channels, the state creates conditions for employment, enhances occupational safety and health, improves working conditions and, on the basis of expanded production, increases remuneration for work and welfare benefits.

      Work is the glorious duty of every able-bodied citizen. All ------- people in State-owned enterprises and in urban and rural economic ----------- should perform their tasks with an attitude consonant with their status as masters of the country. The State promotes --------- labor emulation, and commends and rewards model and advanced workers. The State encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labor.

      The state provides necessary vocational training for citizens before they are employed.

      Article 46. Right to and duty of education

      Citizens of the ------'- -------- of ----- have the right as well as the duty to receive education.

      The state promotes the all-round development of children and young people, morally, intellectually and physically.

      Article 51. Non-infringement of rights

      Citizens of the ------'- -------- of -----, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

      Article 53. Duty to uphold Constitution

      Citizens of the ------'- -------- of ----- must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

    18. E.N., don't quote to me from the U.N. charter. I give not a damn about that worthless piece of paper.

      You ask me about the origin of rights. It doesn't really matter where they come from. A human being--an intelligent, conscious, being able to make decisions--has rights. Those rights aren't granted by any human organization--by any society, by any government, whatever. Some say that the are given to us by God, but that's more than I know. What I do say is that we are born with abilities and with the power of choice. A society that respects each person must hold that person's rights as sacred, regardless of the origin of rights. And regardless of what country the person lives in, so yes, the rights that I discuss are universal, not specific to America.

      By contrast, governments aren't individuals any more than corporations are. Both are formed by the association of individuals, but such organizations have powers, not rights. To protect individuals, those powers must be limited. I don't, despite your implication, have a problem with the government enacting programs to feed the hungry. I would like such a program to work toward building self-sufficiency in those hungry people, but a program like that would fall under the goal of promoting the general welfare. Governments exist to create a stable society and to provide things collectively that we can't do as individuals--but only in so far as such things can be done without violating the rights of the citizens.

      But you claim that my right to own and carry firearms manifestly infringes on the rights of others. How is that? For your statement to be correct, my right would have to cause direct harm to others every time I exercise it. The flaw in your thinking is that my possession of a gun, whether in my home or on my person, is not inherently harmful. I have owned and carried firearms for years without injuring or killing anyone. The same can be said about the vast majority of American gun owners. You're the one who's being obtuse here.

    19. I think this "E.N." was quoting from a far more disturbing source than the U.N. charter...................

      The constitution of the "Peoples Republic of China"

      Look where he blanked the words out, the name even fits.

      Also how does such an insufferable jerk find his way here? Even the "pooch" isn't this bad.

    20. Ah, I-A-N, you're correct. It is a quote from the Chinese Constitution. Alarming how similar the two documents look. What also astonishes me is that anyone would regard the Chinese as guardians of human rights. E.N. proves himself more and more to be in sympathy with tyrants.

  3. Hey Jadegold,
    2009 called. It wants its fake stories back. Wow you are gullible.