TexasCHLforum.com

Molon_labe wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Don't conflate anarchy with "thugocracy". In America, government causes more violence than it prevents.

And thats a proven FACT

**thump thump thump** is this thing on?

Molon_labe wrote:

Molon_labe wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Don't conflate anarchy with "thugocracy". In America, government causes more violence than it prevents.

And thats a proven FACT

**thump thump thump** is this thing on?

Such an assertion cannot be proven. You have no way of knowing how much violence our government prevents.

It might be a strongly held opinion, but it is far from a "fact".

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote:And you would be wrong. Many of us have put a great deal of thought into it.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Not enough from where I sit.

Well, thats the beauty of being in the great mosh pit of thinkers...Some of us are doing well to be floating on top of it most of the time...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Most of us prefer some amount of government to anarchy.

Under anarchy, it has been written that life tends to be nasty, brutish, and short. I agree. And that's not the kind of life I aspire to, no matter how much "freedom" I could experience.

The Founders set up a GOVERNMENT, not an anarchy.

The Constitution is the foundation of our GOVERNMENT, not of our anarchy.

You know, you actually said something very profound here...

KBCraig wrote: In America, government causes more violence than it prevents.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Oh, I don't think so.

You know, I'm sitting here imagining what line either of you two would be on when push comes to shove...

Part of me thinks you two might actually be on the same side, but I am not too sure with these mixed signals I'm getting...Maybe I need a little time to figure it out better...

I'm re-arranging what Kevin wrote there, and wondering why this is an issue...I think we can handle the "government" just fine...But I am wondering why Frankie doesn't think so???

I am intrigued by this apparent difference of opinion...I'll be sending you guys a bill when I'm done...

Some people, as far as I am concerned, who are "followers" of this anarchist line of thinking and activism are some of the dumbest ignoramuses I have even had the displeasure of confronting...And as far as they believe the "state" (government) is the problem...If in their wildest hallucinations they (anarchists) believe the state will battle them into submission, they couldn't be more wrong...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote:
And you would be wrong. Many of us have put a great deal of thought into it.

Not enough from where I sit.

Keep sitting and thinking. Maybe you'll get there.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote: Don't conflate anarchy with "thugocracy".

I'm not conflating anything.

Most of us prefer some amount of government to anarchy.

Under anarchy, it has been written that life tends to be nasty, brutish, and short.

Not nearly so nasty, brutish, and short as it's been under the majority of governments throughout history. From 1900-1987, governments directly caused the death of roughly 169,000,000 people, not including war deaths.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The Founders set up a GOVERNMENT, not an anarchy.

The Constitution is the foundation of our GOVERNMENT, not of our anarchy.

When we scale back to the government they instituted, I believe the majority of anarcho-capitalists wouldn't worry too much about eliminating the remainder.

You can help us return to the Constitution be working to elect Ron Paul as President.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote: In America, government causes more violence than it prevents.

Oh, I don't think so.

If you take America's total violent crime figures, and eliminate those directly attributable to government (such as the war on drugs), and those indirectly attributable (such as the societal degradation caused by the welfare state), there's not much left.

Just to be clear, I'm politically libertarian, but that's because I believe some government is inevitable, and that it should be small and thoroughly restrained. But if it didn't exist at all, I believe we'd be just fine.

Kevin

I've seen all those numbers. Those governments are those governments and ours is ours. It is not valid to assume that ours would act as those have, or create the same level of mayhem.

Your crime arithmetic does not take into account the "unintended consequences". You fail to account for the casualties arising from everyday shootouts between citizens and organized paramilitary criminal gangs.

What? There are no such things? Wait until your utopia is in place and watch them spring into existence.

You also do not account for casualties inflicted on the population by the jihadists who would surely gather here in organized groups to wage their holy wars.

"Any weapon"? Anywhere? I guess that includes bombs, 'cause they are weapons too, right?

In that world, most people would be afraid to leave their houses, including you.

Frankie,

"Any gun anywhere" was the situation in the U.S. from the 18th century until the 1930s.

There were outbreaks of banditry and rebellion, but aside from the War Between the States, they were quelled quickly.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I've seen all those numbers. Those governments are those governments and ours is ours. It is not valid to assume that ours would act as those have, or create the same level of mayhem.

Don't chalk it up to altruism on the part of those in government. Those other governments, unlike our own, faced zero possibility of effective armed resistance.

Your crime arithmetic does not take into account the "unintended consequences". You fail to account for the casualties arising from everyday shootouts between citizens and organized paramilitary criminal gangs.

Yeah, because is we start letting ordinary people carry guns, it will be Dodge City, blood running in the streets, vigilantes playing Dirty Harry -- stop me if you've heard these before.

You also do not account for casualties inflicted on the population by the jihadists who would surely gather here in organized groups to wage their holy wars.

"Surely"? Despite the commonly heard rhetoric about "they hate us because we're free", the truth is they hate us because we're over there. We had been intervening in their internal affairs for almost a century before they attacked us for the first time.

"Any weapon"? Anywhere? I guess that includes bombs, 'cause they are weapons too, right?

Why not? Bombs, like guns, are morally neutral. Also like guns, prohibition does not affect their availability to criminals. The law didn't stop the OKC bombing, nor the first World Trade Center attack.

In that world, most people would be afraid to leave their houses, including you.

Only those people so foolish as to believe there are no guns, bombs, gangs, or jihadists outside their doors today.

Which doesn't include me, by the way.

This thread is about guns on campus.

Chas.

I don't appreciate the parting shot across the bow of other posters, right after I tried to get this thread back on track. I've deleted the post, so please get back on subject.

Chas.

Stevie, do you also write about hippopotamuses, octopusses and rhinorocerusses , too?


Why should a responsible citizen be barred from carrying in any manner, anywhere?
Please do not give the PC and Liberal by rote answers, give a real reasoned answer.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This thread is about guns on campus.

Chas.

Any gun, anywhere?

Personal note: I consider my exchange with Frankie to be a friendly sparring match between allies who disagree about specifics. I'll take Frankie at my back any time.

Kevin

TexAg08 wrote:Where did you carry on campus Will? Ill probably make a trip to campus this week just to walk around and look at all the new freshman scenery . However, Ive heard some conflicting facts on concealed carry on A&M campus, my CHL instructor and local cop I know said its fine, but Ive also read that A&M's rules trump Texas Law in this instance, so someone please inform me.

I got my sportspass all taken care of outside the stadium, and then strolled all over campus to take it all back in. I can't wait for next semester.

I'm glad you're exercising the right to carry on the grounds.
I look forward to the time when you can also carry in the campus buildings. (2009, perhaps?)

Back to the topic of guns on campus...

I spoke with an officer of the Texas State University Police Department (a real department, not rent-a-cops; FYI) about CCW on campus. He made it very clear that while they cannot LEGALLY stop me from carrying on campus (as a citizen) because the campus is not posted 30.06, they can punish me (as a student) because it is "university policy". He expressed that someone my age going through the CHL process shows maturity and that he does not necessarily disagree with license holders being able to carry at Texas State. I then asked what he suggest that I, a student commuting from Austin, do with my firearm during the school day. He said (in a much more veiled manner) that while it is NOT allowed on campus grounds, parking lots included, he cannot see how it would become an issue if the firearm was 100% concealed in the vehicle. Unless they have a reason to search my car (which they will not), securing my gun in the car seems like it will work out just fine.

I'd like to hear thoughts on the officer's comments from everyone; especially my fellow college students and recent grads who have dealt/are dealing with this or a similar issue.

Dwight K. Schrute wrote:I'd like to hear thoughts on the officer's comments from everyone;

He's between a rock and a hard place. His superiors, who can fire him, don't want weapons on campus. He has to enforce their rules. But it sounds like he is on the right side.

- Jim