re: Gov. Deal Vetoed House Bill 859 "Campus Carry"

quote:

---

Toting a gun in case someone starts shooting up the place you are at is "working off of what ifs"..

---

If you are armed, then youve removed the "if" from "if you will be armed". Pretty basic stuff here. Elementary school level.

This thread is hilarious though with all the liars claiming they don't believe in gun control....while in the same exact breath explaining in great detail how they do in fact believe in gun control for a select group of American citizens.

Even though I'm an older white guy I would be afraid to walk around town armed because so many cops feel justified in killing anyone who has as much as a bb gun.

But it's not just cops. There was a news story out of Texas where two armed men who didn't know each other just happened to walk into the same convenience store at the same time. One of the men drew his pistol and shot the other because "he had a gun."

There are just way to many idiots who live frightened lives.

What gets lost in this entire thing is that not allowing people to carry on college campuses is not a "restriction" of 2nd Amendment rights, it is a reaffirmation of the status quo that has been in existence at UGA and other state schools since their founding. The 2nd Amendment has always been curtailed on government property, both state and federal, and schools, both primary and colleges. The constitutionality of this has been reaffirmed by Scalia, one of the most conservative justices in recent memory. These restrictions are in place in so many states that are considered conservative, 2nd Amendment-protecting states, including several that we share a border with. What we have seen recently is an expansion by states of the historic parameters of 2nd Amendment rights, a lot of it a good expansion.

But not agreeing to carrying on college campuses is not an attack on 2nd Amendment rights. It is not a precursor to someone coming to take our guns. I think Deal made a good point when he quoted Jefferson and Madison regarding their stance on guns at UVA, two folks responsible for the Constitution. If you adhere to a strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution, you have to give weight to their stance. They didn't see it as an abridgment of the 2nd Amendment to restrict guns in this aspect.

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution so strictly speaking, they are part of it.

Originalism calls for giving the meaning to the language as meant at the time. Both men's interpretation and understanding would be relevant, Madison as a drafter of the original Constitution and Jefferson as having a hand in the Bill of Rights. I'm not qualified to say what they would agree with, but they had no issue with firearms carry restrictions at UVA. Presumably, they wouldn't with the same restrictions at UGA.

Your argument that the 2nd Amendment as drafted applies only to the Federal government still supports what I said before to the extent they have the ability to limit firearms carry on Federal property. Regardless, the Bill of Rights have been incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and now apply to the states so using an originalist interpretation of the 2nd, allowing limitations on the applicability of the 2nd amendment in sensitive areas, applies equally to the states as of today. If the Bill of Rights had not been incorporated, any state could arguably put all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership since the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply.

If it is purely a state law issue, which I don't necessarily agree with, my previous point stands in that it is up to Georgia to determine what a sensitive area is. GA has always held that state university campuses are proper areas to limit the carrying of firearms so Deal's veto doesn't abridge existing gun rights.

Either way you look at it, not allowing firearms on university campuses is not a limitation 2nd Amendment rights.

quote:

---

If you are armed, then youve removed the "if" from "if you will be armed". Pretty basic stuff here. Elementary school level.

---

But you ain't removed the what if someone starts shooting up the place...life is a ongoing saga of what ifs....way lower than elementary school level...more closer to DNA level...

quote:

---

Either way you look at it, not allowing firearms on university campuses is not a limitation 2nd Amendment rights.

---

What is wrong with the staff carrying and protecting their customers(students)? This seems to be the answer for this, as the teachers are much more responsible (on avg) than an 18-22 year old. This shouldn't be at just colleges either. We know schools have police, but do they stop actual shootings from happening? No, but I'm sure if every teacher or at least 75% of the teachers were armed and trained how to use the gun, then I think a lot of the problems can be avoided.

But then again, a lot of these people who do these shootings, are planning on killing themselves anyway. It is hard to stop this as they literally have nothing to live for.

quote:

---

The decision to tote a gun anywhere, anytime is "working off what if's"...

---

And open carry has been the in effect for almost a year in Georgia and NONE of the predictions and horror stories from the SJW crowd have come to fruition.

I'm definitely not saying that staff/professors, etc. should not be allowed to carry. I'm just saying prohibiting it does not go against the 2nd Amendment. Two separate issues.

quote:

---

The Bill of Rights was attached to the constitution last minute as a compromise to help get the constitution ratified. Many states saw the constitution as the sneaky federal power grab that it was, and so the Bill of Rights was added to try and ease their concerns and con them into ratifying the thing. Every single one of their fears about it of course came true and also a billion others that they couldn't have fathomed.

---

"Attached" is semantics. They are part of the Constitution. You can't seriously be debating that. It is even more evidence that, as you said, passage of the Bill of Rights were instrumental to getting the Constitution ratified.

quote:

---

Their having issue or not with gun control in Georgia is irrelevant. Both Jefferson and Madison would have 1,000% agreed that Georgia should decide for themselves about whether to allow citizens to be armed on Georgia campuses. And that it was none of Viriginia's or the Fed's business. These two men were the authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, aka the Principles of '98. They were states rights men. Fierce, unapologetic ones. MOstly.

---

The fact they recognized that it may be appropriate to curtail 2nd Amendment rights in certain areas is relevant, particularly as to how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as applies to the Federal government and the states through the Due Process Clause. I also never said that they would not have claimed that Georgia has the right to decide. I was pointing out they would not be critical of the decision.

quote:

---

Deal is enforcing gun control in Georgia. Please stop trying to sugar coat and rationalize it.

---

You can characterize this however you want. My ultimate point is that it is not unconstitutional in any way to limit the 2nd Amendment on areas such as college campuses. I don't have to "rationalize" it. This has been the case for the entirety of the existence of UGA. If you choose to disagree with the validity/appropriateness of the Constitution, that's a whole other matter. I confined my opinion as to whether it was constitutional to limit 2nd Amendment rights on college campuses given the set of laws that has been in existence in the US since adoption of the Constitution.

If, as you said, firearms rights are a state issue (which is not necessarily the case b/c if Georgia decided to ban handguns, I'm sure everyone would cry foul as an unconstitutional restriction of 2nd Amendment rights), there is no debate as to whether it is actually allowed to restrict firearms on college campuses.

Fear drives people to buy guns. The fearless travel unencumbered.