|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: We don't need guns on college campuses
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Although we support a person's right to own a gun, we can't justify the need for those weapons to be carried by students, faculty or others on college and university campuses in the state.
The criminal justice committee in the Florida House of Representatives will begin considering such a bill when it meets Tuesday. The bill, filed by Rep. Greg Stuebe, R-Sarasota, would allow for people with concealed weapons licenses to carry guns on campuses. A similar bill also has been filed in the Senate by Greg Evers, R-Baker. The bills have failed in the past, and we see no reason that it should be any different this time. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/19/2015)
|
Considering the average level of maturity, (as demonstrated by behaviors and documented skill sets of most college students) I'd almost agree with this proposal. College has become an "extended adolescence" for far too many children of means. And we all know today's adolescent's are immature, irresponsible and often lawless. And their parent's support them !
But there's a distinct segment of college students that are responsible, thinking adults. Are we to deprive these individuals of their constitutionally-guaranteed "rights" because of the actions of the irresponsible ? How does a college justify this? Unless, of course, they're willing to "adopt", hence become responsible for the actions of these social miscreants. |
| Comment by:
Gearmoe
(1/20/2015)
|
| Why can it not be considered as rational? It is preemptive and a strategy. It provides a faster response to a violent occurrence. Law-abiding people are not the ones needed to guard against, surely this is not the logic, or is it? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |
|
|
