Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumBoulder Rep. Claire Levy plans bill that would allow CU to again ban guns on campus
Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, will hold a forum this week with University of Colorado faculty members to discuss a legislative strategy that could give the regents the authority to ban guns on CU campuses.
The Colorado Supreme Court in March overturned CU's longstanding gun ban when it ruled the university cannot prohibit those with concealed-weapons permits from bringing their firearms on campus. Last week, the board voted to amend the university policy to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
Faculty members at CU have expressed serious concern -- "collective dismay," according to one professor -- that concealed weapons are now allowed in classrooms.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_21547722/claire-levy-d-boulder-plans-bill-that-would
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hope this fails.
Stupid people will hit their heads against a brick wall no matter how much it hurts.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and I don't know why she is even introducing this bill. She's got to know that it has zero chance of passing and even if, by some wild chance, it did pass, it would be challenged in the courts where it would go down in flames. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Glad to see somebody challenging the gun-lobby and its multi-millionaire enablers, oops, executives of the NRA.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)concealed carry on this campus hasn't led to deaths nor has banning it prevented deaths on other campuses.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It is worth noting that there is no public safety issue here
I bet you said the same exact phrase .01 microsecond before the Delicate Flower in the Joker makeup started massacring the women & children in Aurora.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)guns were not permitted by the theaters rules except by LEOs (this includes licensed civilians).
So according to some it was a safe haven.
Universities will be exactly as safe from gun violence as movie theaters if they copy those policies.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It's worth noting that the movie theater in Aurora was a gun free zone
Do you want another prize for posting the NRA Talking Point (AKA Big Lie) that "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"
You've already gotten it a bunch of times.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Do you want another prize for posting the NRA Talking Point (AKA Big Lie) that "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"
Antis often fall back on strawmen when their arguments are easily destroyed by reality.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It's worth noting that this was never stated: Do you want another prize for posting the NRA Talking Point (AKA Big Lie) that "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"
Your original post:
"It's worth noting that the movie theater in Aurora was a gun free zone guns were not permitted by the theaters rules except by LEOs (this includes licensed civilians)."
IOW, "criminals don't obey laws so why have them?"
I understand that Delicate Flowers are strictly 100% Literal Thinkers, and don't understand metaphor or analogy. I can see why you're so confused.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)antis often pretend they are the same thing because their arguments cannot stand on their own merits.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)When you Delicate Flowers get called on your ignorance, it is best to just stop digging.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)I proved you didn't/don't understand what an analogy is, and also that you were just regurgitating a long-debunked and false NRA Talking Point.
beevul
(12,194 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)Nice to see another Delicate Flower stalker!
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Just like the DU Gun Lobby will be totally for the next Delicate Flower who murders Americans right up to .01 microsecond before his/her rampage begins.
Although, some of the DU Gun Lobby will stand behind murderous Delicate Flowers even after they perform their assassinations, like in the case of the hero-to-some Zimmerman.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)do you have that the shooter in Aurora was, in your words, a "Delicate Flower"? He was not a CCW holder nor was he carrying weapons because he was concerned about his safety.
> He was not a CCW holder nor was he carrying weapons because he was concerned about his safety.
I'll answer you after you prove both these points.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)but I do know that if the Aurora shooter had a CCW we would know about it. Hell, he was not even allowed at a local range to shoot because he came off as nuts on the telephone and on voicemail. He was carrying guns in order to shoot and kill people, that is obvious but maybe not so much for you. The point I was trying to make is that there is zero evidence that this idiot was a 'gun nut' or shall I more accurately say 'gun enthusiast'.
> zero evidence that this idiot was a 'gun nut' or shall I more accurately say 'gun enthusiast'.
Well, besides the fact he had an arsenal of weapons and ammo, anyway.
He had 4 guns and it is not clear that he used one of the pistols in his shooting rampage. That and the amount of ammunition does not really represent an 'arsenal'. This guy was a nut but it is not clear that he was a gun nut. Of course I'm not defending him, but I do know that you're attempting to paint him with the same brush as you do RKBA supporters on this site, and that just is not a rational or valid take on the subject.
To us not-afraid-of-public-spaces-without-a-gun Liberals, any more than one gun (as bad as that is) constitutes an arsenal.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)You can re-read my post if you're confused. Read it s-l-o-w-l-y.
spin
(17,493 posts)caused a mass murder in a college or school. I tried and failed.
According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder
Can anyone explain how prohibiting a person with a valid carry permit from having his firearm on a college campus will stop another person with severe mental issues and who has no permit from bringing firearms unto a college campus and shooting a number of people?
Murdering others is illegal and in many states can lead to a death sentence. Despite this fact we do have mass murders in our nation most of which are committed with firearms and are fortunately infrequent.
One last question. Would a severely mentally disturbed person who was capable of planning a massacre choose a gun free zone over an area where he might risk facing an armed individual? It appears that they often do.
Response to spin (Reply #3)
GreenStormCloud This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Colorado Revised Statute
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
...
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution;
...
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;
(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;
(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;
...
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.
29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting.
A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.
LexisNexis® Custom Solution: Colorado Revised Statutes Research Tool
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)
locks
(2,012 posts)You are probably right that Claire Levy's bill will not pass but we laud her for bringing it forward. It takes courage in Colorado to even talk about commonsense gun control such as keeping guns away from schools. And anyone who has the temerity to take such a stand will immediately be bashed in every type of media by all the gun lovers who want to exercise their right to carry guns into hospitals, schools, parks, movies, bars, casinos, parades and tailgating parties. And we will have to deal with the truly stupid belief that many lives would have been saved if everybody at Columbine or the Aurora moviehouse had been carrying a concealed gun. And the NRA will double down on buying our representatives and telling us we all really need a number of assault weapons. And in case a drunk student goes to the wrong house be sure you have at least a 100-round clip.
If we dare to ask Why do you need a gun on campus or at all? we in Colorado have heard every not really funny answer like:
Because the 2nd amendment says everyone should carry a gun.
I need it to protect me and my family; if someone enters my house I may need ten different kinds of firearms and 100 rounds of ammo to make sure he dies.
I need to teach my children how to shoot.
I need to keep varmints out of my garden and kill wild animals so my family won't starve.
There are teens in my neighborhood who wear hoodies and look suspicious.
I'm a Patriot; I don't trust the government so I have to be ready when the feds come to take away my property.
I love target practice and am training for the Olympics.
The US needs to sell more guns to other countries and I help provide jobs.
As a DUer said "A gun is a thing of beauty"; it makes me look like Clint Eastwood and I plan to put my picture on YouTube or in a gun magazine.
I might want to commit suicide some day; pills and knives would take too long.
My grandfather always had a gun and you can never have too many.
But I'm sure YOUR reason is a good one--you are one of the good guys who just needs a gun (or many) to protect yourself, and those you consider to be good guys, from the bad guys. While I may understand your intention you may never understand that I feel more, not less, at risk when you and your gun are nearby. I have lived my long life in a number of states, in rural areas, innercity, suburbs, small towns. I have been in huge crowds and protests and on many campuses. Not once did I want or need a civilian with a gun to protect me or my family. For every story you tell about a gun saving someone's life there are ten thousand sad stories of people dying or being badly injured from guns, fired accidentally or on purpose. There are 300,000,000 privately-held guns in the US; 87 people a day die from them, a number 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.
From gun-lovers and their lobbyists we often hear that any gun control laws will lead to a "slippery slope" where Obama and Brady will take their guns away. The only slippery slope I have seen is that while we have always lived in a violent nation, we have moved to a culture in which ordinary people live in fear, and not just from criminals. Cities and college campuses have a hard enough time controlling binge drinking, drunk driving, or people who are mentally ill and not receiving care. Add guns; anger for any reason escalates until the one with a gun feels he needs to use it. (Not very different at the international level.)
I have a dream that one day our most important human right will be the right to live in a peaceful world. Crazy, you say. Not nearly as crazy as thinking a gun will bring peace and protection.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)a self defense solution that works better than a firearm?
Clames
(2,038 posts)...is why your side will never have any success. Can't think beyond the objects of your irrational fear to even attempt to take on the bigger issues.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The statistics are solidly against you. You are in greater danger of being struck by lightning than you are of being illegally killed by a CCWer who is legally carrying. Texas keeps and annually posts online detailed statistics of its Concealed Handgun Population. There is no reason to believe that the Texas experience is any different than that of other shall-issue states. You may review those stats for any year here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
We who have guns do not need to justify our need for them to you. In a free society it is you who has to show a need to restrict them. Therefore, I can have as many guns as I want, and as much ammo as I want, provided that I can pay for it.
Your 87 per day number includes suicides. A person who has decided to kill themselves will find a way even if they don't have a gun. It isn't that hard to do. The rest of those gun deaths are almost all done by criminals with long prior records. Your idea of two guys with no prior records arguing until they start shooting is extremely rare.
Stop treating law-abiding citizens as if we were criminals.
locks
(2,012 posts)As I said these are the kind of replies we who are concerned about guns in our society always get and why so few people even try to pass reasonable gun control laws. They are not nearly as bad as what Rep. Levy has had to deal with every day. Today one of the bloggers wrote "Next thing U of Colorado will want to do is ban knives and forks in backpacks," (he's no doubt majoring in logic). However, I really expect more of DUers and truly hope that Colorado DUers will support this bill when it comes up, which is what most of the faculty and students want.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the danger is the guy who ignores the signs and doesn't bother to get a CCW because he has ill intent, not the CCW day student.
What are reasonable gun control laws?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)it's what the law says and the CO. Supreme Court has spoken. I just don't see what the problem is, has there been anyone with a CC permit been caught doing something illegal on campus? If not, then why all the hand wringing?
And how would this bill keep guns off campus? Think the criminals will obey it? Because of a law?
This bill is going nowhere, and rightly so.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And what compensation do you propose if (when) those ideas fail?
