Chatham County Online BBS
December 11, 2017, 11:33:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read what Chatham County bloggers are saying at the Blog Aggregator
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Yet another mass murder, made possible by leftist policies of gun-free zones!  (Read 3370 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Freedom Handyman
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:May 04, 2017, 06:35:57 AM
Date Registerd:December 23, 2007, 08:51:43 AM
Posts: 487



« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2015, 08:46:22 AM »

There were, by news accounts, at least one person with a concealed weapon on campus. The college may have discouraged weapons, but it seems this individual knew he was allowed to carry his weapon. Not knowing how far away police response was from the shooting, and being about 200 yards away from the building where the shooting was happening, an armed good samaritan could easily be mistaken for the shooter by authorities, or by another good samaritan.
True, and well thought out. BUT if you happen to be trained military (I speak for myself) you don't worry about that stuff. IF you have time to think, you call 911 and describe yourself PERFECTLY-including clothing and weapon. (As you are running towards the threat) When police arrive, I would personally lay down with arms and legs spread, no weapon, and yell "friendly" as loud as I ever had.
I am in no way suggesting anyone do this , but those who are on the same page as I am already know.
I feel that carrying concealed as a trained veteran I have greater responsibilities than only protecting myself. My opinion and my choice, I would worry about getting shot or arrested after I neutralized the threat. We don't need more gun control, we need more criminal control.
Logged

"There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army"
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 04:02:11 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,829



« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2015, 09:59:39 AM »

CHF, in your rush to politicize this issue, you seem to have left out a few key facts:

"The school is not a "gun-free zone," because Oregon laws don't allow public colleges to ban loaded guns."
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/10/umpqua_community_college_not_a.html

  • Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

  • A 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.
"There are students and staff and visitors carrying guns on every campus of every college in this state every day," said Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/09/oregon_court_of_appeals_reject.html

John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

...

A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said.

"If we would have run across the field, we would have been targets," he said. "We made a good choice at the time."


I certainly don't think I would have tried to stop anyone from going to help the people under attack, even with the possibility that they may be confused with the shooter by police.
Logged
John Florida
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 01:52:41 PM
Date Registerd:May 30, 2010, 12:53:20 PM
Posts: 7,311



« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2015, 11:00:35 AM »

  Before you point fingers about politicizing a situation I would refer to the Presidents comments asap after the news hit and before the families even knew who was hurt.

   
Logged

"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"
 FILIPPO MAZZEI
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2015, 12:17:23 PM »

Yip, the pretense of your stupidity again grows tiresome. I freely admit that liberals will lie about this. I explained the difference between case law and legislative law in a previous post, AND I posted a copy of the school policy. It is, and was, a gun-free zone. They have since deleted the policy from the website, for obvious reasons.  Lying about it does not change the facts. NO person in the classroom was armed, and it was so by school policy. And you are NOT stupid. You already know that. having a Veteran on campus, 200 yards away does not make it a right to carry campus. It means he DEFIED school policy and good for him. More people need to defy liberalism and LIVE instead of dying.

You ARE however willing to lie to further liberal causes, which cause more and more death in America. What is the difference between a person who will lie to assist and foment murder and the murderer himself? Not much in my opinion. Both have innocent blood on their hands.

Notice also that the most liberal president EVER is the one who politicized this event in order to gain ground in his attempt at gun-confiscation from law abiding citizens. (He advocated the Australian plan which IS gun-confiscation.  And nothing short of that will prevent people who want to murder with guns. And even if you also repeal the 4th amendment, as you would have to do to allow the searches to prevent those who would defy the repeal of the 2nd amendment, there are people who would, and have in the past, STILL continued to murder. You liberals would only once again make their job easier and safer, knowing full well that all good people are disarmed. And again, more blood on your hands.  When will you stop and allow people to participate in their own life and the very protection of it? 

<"Dangerous Devices

Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.

Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.

Brandishing weapons is prohibited.

Misuse of personal defensive weapons – e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices."

From the school's own website, just in case anyone is stupid enough to believe leftist propaganda.>
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,516



« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2015, 09:42:55 AM »

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

GEOGRAPHIC, HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS

If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, it should
follow, all things being equal, (1) that geo - graphic areas with higher gun
ownership should have more murder than those with less gun ownership; (2) that
demo - graphic groups with higher gun ownership should be more prone to murder
than those with less ownership; and (3) that historical eras in which gun
ownership is widespread should have more murder than those in which guns were
fewer or less widespread. As discussed earlier, these effects are not
present. Historical eras, demographic groups, and geo - graphic areas with
more guns do not have more murders than those with fewer guns. Indeed, those
with more guns often, or even generally, have fewer murders. "

.......

"The second issue, allied to the burden of proof, regards plausibility. On
their face, the following facts from Tables 1 and 2 suggest that gun ownership
is irrelevant, or has little relevance, to murder: France and neighboring
Germany have exactly the same, comparatively high rate of gun own - ership, yet
the French murder rate is nearly twice the Ger - man; France has infinitely
more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five
times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse;
Germany has almost double the gun owner - ship rate of neighboring Austria yet
a similarly very low murder rate; the Norwegian gun ownership rate is over
twice the Austrian rate, yet the murder rates are almost identical. And then
there is Table 3, which shows Slovenia, with 66% more gun ownership than
Slovakia, nevertheless has roughly one - third less murder per capita; Hungary
has more than 6 times the gun ownership rate of neighboring Romania but a lower
murder rate; the Czech Republic's gun ownership rate is more than 3 times that
of neighboring Poland, but its mur - der rate is lower; Poland and neighboring
Slovenia have ex - actly the same murder rate, though Slovenia has over triple
the gun ownership per capita."


CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.


149. (1) Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving
that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of
proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to
abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving
that abolishment is a good idea."
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,516



« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2015, 10:09:40 AM »

CHF, in your rush to politicize this issue, you seem to have left out a few key facts


In your rush to criticize a right winger, you neglected to do your own research.  So, you read an article at Mother Jones or Thinkprogress that said that guns were allowed on campus, and then you gleefully seize the opportunity to run in here and claim that CHF was wrong?  

Well, the truth is that the laws in Oregon when it comes to concealed carry on campus are convoluted, to put it mildly.  The Oregon court did say that colleges could not ban people from carrying, but that did not stop some colleges (who by the way perceived a loop hole in the court's decision) to make their own regulations.  The Oregon State Board of Higher Education then decided that guns are allowed on campus but not at sporting venues or college buildings.

So you can carry a gun on campus, but not in the buildings.  The Army veteran that carried concealed that is mentioned in various articles was in a gray area legally speaking when he carried the gun into a building.  Technically, he could have faced disciplinary action from the college.  

In some ways, that's not that different than ordinary concealed carry in NC outside of college campuses.  You can carry, but not in any building that is posted.  That means any business or state owned building that has the "guns prohibited" sign, is off limits for concealed carry.

The laws in Oregon on this topic are a little fuzzy.  I'm sure many students decided not to carry because of the risk of disciplinary action, which might include expulsion.  But hey, if you won't take my word for it, why not take the word of another favorite liberal leaning source?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/umpquagunfree.asp

I do have a question for you, Yip.  You said you wouldn't stop someone going to help those being attacked, even if they ran the risk of being shot by police in the confusion.  I have to ask you though, and I mean this in the nicest way possible: who do you think you are?  Who are you to stop someone from putting themselves at risk to save others?  Who are you to stop someone from taking that risk?  And how exactly would you go about doing that when, presumably, they are armed and you are not?  Just curious what you'd do if in fact your calculus was different and you decided the guy interceding was in the wrong.

It's interesting that in our discussions I thought that you might have seen the light when it comes to gun control.  I can't tell whether or not that is still the case.  Do you get where we are coming from and just popped in here for the sake of being the liberal contrarian.  I'm hoping that's what is going on here.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 05:06:59 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Posts: 3,402



« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2015, 01:13:12 PM »

And here I thought it was mighty magnanimous of him not to grandstand  Grin

;')
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 04:02:11 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,829



« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2015, 01:46:20 PM »

Did you miss the direct link to an Oregon newspaper and not those you mentioned?

Here is the quote:

"That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish."

I would assume that any "disciplinary action from the college" would simply be disputed by state law.

I'm willing to admit that yes, the school does have some related policies that apply, but the point was that I don't think they would hold up legally based upon the 1989 law. I wonder if anyone has ever been disciplined by the school and made a legal challenge, that part I don't know and it sounds like you don't either.

CHF which post did you explain "the difference between case law and legislative law"? Perhaps I missed that and if so my apologies. However, I don't remember seeing anything like that!

As far as stopping anyone, I was just meant by talking to them if I felt they were in danger.

I do understand the issues hear and totally get why gun-free zones are a problem. I just felt like since the actual law involved here said the opposite, it might be good to bring that up.
   


Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:23:34 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,678

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2015, 05:28:19 PM »

You aware, are you not, that despite our very clear gun rights laws, some towns and municipalities continue to impose their own anti-gun laws right here in NC?

Quote
I just felt like since the actual law involved here said the opposite, it might be good to bring that up.

Yah, you're real good like 'at.

Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,516



« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2015, 11:07:19 PM »

Did you miss the direct link to an Oregon newspaper and not those you mentioned?

Here is the quote:

"That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish."

I would assume that any "disciplinary action from the college" would simply be disputed by state law.

I'm willing to admit that yes, the school does have some related policies that apply, but the point was that I don't think they would hold up legally based upon the 1989 law. I wonder if anyone has ever been disciplined by the school and made a legal challenge, that part I don't know and it sounds like you don't either.

CHF which post did you explain "the difference between case law and legislative law"? Perhaps I missed that and if so my apologies. However, I don't remember seeing anything like that!

As far as stopping anyone, I was just meant by talking to them if I felt they were in danger.

I do understand the issues hear and totally get why gun-free zones are a problem. I just felt like since the actual law involved here said the opposite, it might be good to bring that up.

Yeah Yip, I read the link and I read the law.  If you'll go back and read my post again, carefully this time, I think you'll be able to catch it.  The fact that you even asked that question makes me wonder if you're multitasking or what.

There are two things that can influence behavior when it comes to students carrying on campus.  One is the state statutes and court decisions.  The other is the rule that can be enforced, quite effectively, but expelling a student.  Yeah, he might win if he challenges it, but when the school and the state are at odds with another, it put the student in the middle.

All of that calculus comes in to play when you're trying to decide to carry a gun on campus.  So you can talk about what might hold up legally, but in the short term a student risks disciplinary action that the school could take.  Does that delay their graduation?  I would guess so.

Any way you want to slice it, there are rules that the guy or gal who wants to carry has to consider.  So as I said, it isn't quite as simple as you're trying to make it.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2015, 11:12:34 PM »

The actual and most direct regulation was by the school itself The school by the way, has now deleted their rules, but that changes nothing, except to the degree I consider that a confession of guilt.

Though I posted them before, you have a habit of ignoring facts, so here the reg for the college campus is again:"Dangerous Devices

Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.

Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.

Brandishing weapons is prohibited.

Misuse of personal defensive weapons – e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices."

I am fully aware that some leftist papers and you are lying abou tthis. But lies do not change facts. They simply are. You can deny them......and you will as you always have....but they REMAIN FACTS! The fact is that anyone who carried and was caught would be suspended.....pending a court appeal which could take more years than a degree. The college defied case law, based on legislative law, apparently. I have had cases myself where the facts are on my side, but the COST of litigation is greater than the benefit.  This would certainly be one of those cases. A man could fight for years, while unarmed and vulnerable, and win his right, but that right is really only for him without further legislation or further litigation, and furthermore of no use to him because he will already be dead or graduated.

And that is PART of the difference in case law, which is judicial, and legislative law, which is statewide.  Judges are notorious for having God complexes. I see this all the time in my business. You can be cited for contempt for quoting one judge's decision to another. Vanity? Perhaps. Reality? Certainly. A Judge has the power to rul edirectly against all written law. Look to Kennedy's most recent opinion from the supreme court and show me ANY legislative law to back it up.

The fact is the judicialry have neutered themselves because they do not stand by the written word as understood by we the people. There were HUNDREDS of people on that campus. ONE read the law and the case law and felt he had the right to DEFY the college and carry anyway. Should they choose to charge him he will spend thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend himself. And he was no where near the murderer. So, again, the place the murders happened were a gun free zone by the rules of liberals.

Until we stop this their blood is on your hands, Yip.  I PROMISE you that I stand against evil from people I think are my allies. The question is will you stand against this evil from your liberal friends? It is not enough to say here, "there are problems with gun-free zones." Stand up to our oppressors. Free your fellow men. The difference between serfs and citizens, slaves and freemen, is that the citizens and freemen can defend themselves. Choose Yip. You are too smart to help perpetuate this evil without getting it on your soul.

Did you miss the direct link to an Oregon newspaper and not those you mentioned?

Here is the quote:

"That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish."

I would assume that any "disciplinary action from the college" would simply be disputed by state law.

I'm willing to admit that yes, the school does have some related policies that apply, but the point was that I don't think they would hold up legally based upon the 1989 law. I wonder if anyone has ever been disciplined by the school and made a legal challenge, that part I don't know and it sounds like you don't either.

CHF which post did you explain "the difference between case law and legislative law"? Perhaps I missed that and if so my apologies. However, I don't remember seeing anything like that!

As far as stopping anyone, I was just meant by talking to them if I felt they were in danger.

I do understand the issues hear and totally get why gun-free zones are a problem. I just felt like since the actual law involved here said the opposite, it might be good to bring that up.
   



Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2015, 11:16:05 PM »

Every school I have ever attended gave me a booklet, describing the rules, and I, of course, obeyed them. But, in retrospect, not one ever included case law that said I could ignore THEIR rules.  Do you have any evidence that those college did that, Yip?
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,516



« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2015, 09:52:45 AM »

This is a great article about Gun Free Zones.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2015, 01:34:55 AM »



Thanks for sharing that, Pi! it was very informative.
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:December 05, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,516



« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2015, 12:54:47 AM »

Thanks for sharing that, Pi! it was very informative.

You are very welcome, sir.  If I managed to present something about firearms that you didn't already know, I consider that a major accomplishment.  You know your stuff.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!