I must have missed it.

As I wrote earlier in Missouri I can carry my pistol in the open and have been able to do so for many years. In Kansas there are some towns that I can do the same thing. Both states have concealed carry and the Kansas legislature is looking at bills allowing concealed carry on campus (with Board of Regents approval), My own school has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQJ_FJ8zsQ Missouri
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqpjWnQjC5s Alabama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkU7qAxc3DY New Hampshire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRzJ2LAWpyA California
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh2RbbrTVgQ Tennessee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah3a7dQqyZI Texas Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

According to the source I just looked at, 15 states allow open-carry without regulation. 15 allow open-carry with licensing required for some. In 14 states, including Missouri, open-carry is "generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions.", which means that municipalities may not allow open-carry and this over-rides the state law. 6 states do not allow open carry at all.

Now I've been in 26 of the 44 states where open-carry is allowed and I have to admit I've never seen anyone openly carrying a handgun. I lived in Connecticut for 4 years and never saw anyone carrying a handgun (other than police). In my opinion, the average person does not care if there is open-carry is allowed in their state. They don't do it.
And they would probably prefer that other don't do it. My opinion in this case.

What is illegal and is overcome by "don't ask, don't tell" is at least to me irrelevant.
It doesn't change the FACT that there are laws on the books that keep you from your universal right to self defense with a handgun at all times, which I'm sure is your desire.

When I think it is appropriate and/or useful I will have a handgun with me. Period. 99.99% of passersby or persons around me will not know until it is appropriate and/or useful to reveal it in which case they are more likely to hear it before they see it. I have a good working knowledge of the various laws surrounding my possession and use of a firearm and those risks are acceptable given the alternative of not having it.

I really don't understand why any "debate" or conflicting discussion.

If you want to carry one. Do it. If not. Don't.

When I think it is appropriate and/or useful I will have a handgun with me. Period. 99.99% of passersby or persons around me will not know until it is appropriate and/or useful to reveal it in which case they are more likely to hear it before they see it. I have a good working knowledge of the various laws surrounding my possession and use of a firearm and those risks are acceptable given the alternative of not having it.

I really don't understand why any "debate" or conflicting discussion.

If you want to carry one. Do it. If not. Don't. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree with you totally. However, it is not totally up to you as to where you deem it "appropriate". You may want to carry it into my office building where it is clearly not allowed. As long as you have a CHL I fully support your carrying a concealed handgun.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1054910030]As My own school has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

By the way, don't the students who attend your school who expect to be in a gun-free classroom have rights too?

Shouldn't they be in a classroom without a communicable disease as well? You're losing your argument you know. The universal right to self defense was not about gun but you're trying to make it so. I have (you do too) a right to self defense whether I use my fist, a stick, a knife, a well aimed fart but I have that right. Now I chose to use a firearm because I can't get a grenade or death beam. Carrying a firearm is legal in this state. So 2 + 2 = 4. I can't defend myself and I can carry a gun. So I can defend myself with a gun. Want to argue the math?

Shouldn't they be in a classroom without a communicable disease as well? You're losing your argument you know. The universal right to self defense was not about gun but you're trying to make it so. I have (you do too) a right to self defense whether I use my fist, a stick, a knife, a well aimed fart but I have that right. Now I chose to use a firearm because I can't get a grenade or death beam. Carrying a firearm is legal in this state. So 2 + 2 = 4. I can't defend myself and I can carry a gun. So I can defend myself with a gun. Want to argue the math? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are correct. I may have misinterpreted what you meant by the "universal right to self defense", assuming incorrectly you meant self defense with a handgun. Certainly everyone is allowed to defend themselves at all times. However, not at all times with a handgun. That is where you mathematical formula breaks down. Carrying a firearm in your state in college classrooms is not legal, whether you do it or not being 100% irrelevant. Care to argue with the "new" math?

As for a student being in a classroom with a communicable disease. There is a huge difference between doing something that is morally wrong and doing something that is legally wrong. .

The colleges in Kansas can make their own choices within state laws. State law allows concealed carry and some colleges do as well. They don't like to make it that public because of the bedwetting constitutency. Hence don't ask, don't tell. If that was good enough for Bill Clinton....

I have been talking about universal right of self defense from the beginning.

I am also surprised that you didn't go the common attack, "have you ever used a gun to defend yourself?".

The colleges in Kansas can make their own choices within state laws. State law allows concealed carry and some colleges do as well. They don't like to make it that public because of the bedwetting constitutency. Hence don't ask, don't tell. If that was good enough for Bill Clinton....

I have been talking about universal right of self defense from the beginning.

I am also surprised that you didn't go the common attack, "have you ever used a gun to defend yourself?". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Whether or not you've used a gun to defend yourself is not relevant in a discussion on gun rights.

You are still avoiding the point I am making about your math. Your 2 + 2 =4 formula is incorrect since as even you are admitting colleges in Kansas have the right to ban handguns. Therefore you CAN'T defend yourself at all times with a handgun in your state or any other state. Someday you'll understand that gun owner's rights are not absolute.

And BTW, the so-called bed-wetting constituency to which you refer are the great majority in the U.S. Wearing a gun only makes you believe you are superior than others. And many times that can lead to a rude awakening.

Whether or not you've used a gun to defend yourself is not relevant in a discussion on gun rights.

You are still avoiding the point I am making about your math. Your 2 + 2 =4 formula is incorrect since as even you are admitting colleges in Kansas have the right to ban handguns. Therefore you CAN'T defend yourself at all times with a handgun in your state or any other state. Someday you'll understand that gun owner's rights are not absolute.

And BTW, the so-called bed-wetting constituency to which you refer are the great majority in the U.S. Wearing a gun only makes you believe you are superior than others. And many times that can lead to a rude awakening. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There you go! That is the mistake. You think that people who are armed believe that they are superior to others. Wrong! wrong! wrong! Carrying a weapon implies greater responsibility. Even if you're right, you'll going to go through the wringer if you defend yourself or others just because of people like you who think this. Carrying a weapon takes less training than being a black belt in some martial artist but you know what they say about hands being lethal weapons. If you get in some kind of punching match with someone else you're screwed because of your training. Same thing with a weapon.

Two men come into a convenience store brandishing weapons and making threats. They point guns at you and other customers and demand you give up your money. They pistol whip the young female clerk after she gives them the money. Then they say that every has to go in the back of the store. You draw your concealed weapon and fire two shots into the first criminal. The second fires at you and you return fire striking him once. He goes outside and dies trying to get into his car.

You are going to spend a lot of money defending yourself in court. Why did you have the gun? Are you a hot head? Did you look forward to killing someone? And if the men are black or Hispanic. Did you hate black people? Would you have fired if they were white? Did it concern you that others could have been shot by you? How did you know that the "victims" were going to kill anyone? What gives you the right to defend yourself (and others) against a make believe threat?

Now you admit that going up against two robbers with a baseball bat or machete is okay. Self defense right? Your odds of winning go down though. I think your problem is that you consider it unfair to criminals that you are their equal (or superior) in firepower and skill. Mayhaps you would prefer a duel outside the the crime scene. The same weapons at a set distance with rules.... I'd go for that because I am certain my skill is superior.

So is that it? You want the criminals to have a fair chance?

In the ideal situation, both criminals die and no one else gets hurt, where is the problem?

There you go! That is the mistake. You think that people who are armed believe that they are superior to others. Wrong! wrong! wrong! Carrying a weapon implies greater responsibility. Even if you're right, you'll going to go through the wringer if you defend yourself or others just because of people like you who think this. Carrying a weapon takes less training than being a black belt in some martial artist but you know what they say about hands being lethal weapons. If you get in some kind of punching match with someone else you're screwed because of your training. Same thing with a weapon.

Two men come into a convenience store brandishing weapons and making threats. They point guns at you and other customers and demand you give up your money. They pistol whip the young female clerk after she gives them the money. Then they say that every has to go in the back of the store. You draw your concealed weapon and fire two shots into the first criminal. The second fires at you and you return fire striking him once. He goes outside and dies trying to get into his car.

You are going to spend a lot of money defending yourself in court. Why did you have the gun? Are you a hot head? Did you look forward to killing someone? And if the men are black or Hispanic. Did you hate black people? Would you have fired if they were white? Did it concern you that others could have been shot by you? How did you know that the "victims" were going to kill anyone? What gives you the right to defend yourself (and others) against a make believe threat?

Now you admit that going up against two robbers with a baseball bat or machete is okay. Self defense right? Your odds of winning go down though. I think your problem is that you consider it unfair to criminals that you are their equal (or superior) in firepower and skill. Mayhaps you would prefer a duel outside the the crime scene. The same weapons at a set distance with rules.... I'd go for that because I am certain my skill is superior.

So is that it? You want the criminals to have a fair chance?

In the ideal situation, both criminals die and no one else gets hurt, where is the problem? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Idiot! You are the one who referred to people who don't want guns around as the "bedwetting constituency". There is only one way IMHO of taking something like that -- that people who do own and carry guns are superior in at least one way to those that do not. Unless you have a different explanation for using that term.

Your scenario is just as stupid. Concealed handguns are allowed in almost every circumstance, including in your scenario. No one, my self included, is trying to take that right away from you. However, and try to let this think into your thick skull, at times the people who are given the authority, determine that NOT allowing guns is safer for the general population than allowing guns. The University of Texas - Austin, as with many other colleges, has banned concealed handguns from classrooms and dormitories. Why? They believe that the risks associated with allowing handguns far outweighs the risk of banning them. My office building bans handguns because the people who are charged with making such decisions have decided that the risk associated with allowing handguns far outweighs the risks associated with banning them. In these rare places where handguns are outlawed, it is certainly true that a criminal with a gun will have an advantage. Do you finally understand?

Where does it say that bedwetting constituency has anything to do with guns exclusively? I have heard it used for other problems. You sound defensive, like I'm speaking about you personally.

Why is that scenario stupid? Because you've never experienced it? The fact is that I took it from an actual crime. Stupid? Think again.

"Thick Skull"? Now you're getting nasty because I disagree with you and I'm winning on points.

How many of those mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones whether legally or by corporate demands? Virgina Tech--gun free zone--32 dead,
Fort Hood--gun free zone--13 dead,
Aurora movie theater--gun free zone--12 dead,
Giffords presser--gun free zone--six dead,
Maryland shopping mall--gun free zone--three dead,
Washington DC naval shooting--gun free zone--13 dead,
Columbine shooting--gun free zone--13 dead,...
do I have to continue?

Gun show shootings--zero

Where does it say that bedwetting constituency has anything to do with guns exclusively? I have heard it used for other problems. You sound defensive, like I'm speaking about you personally.

Why is that scenario stupid? Because you've never experienced it? The fact is that I took it from an actual crime. Stupid? Think again.

"Thick Skull"? Now you're getting nasty because I disagree with you and I'm winning on points.

How many of those mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones whether legally or by corporate demands? Virgina Tech--gun free zone--32 dead,
Fort Hood--gun free zone--13 dead,
Aurora movie theater--gun free zone--12 dead,
Giffords presser--gun free zone--six dead,
Maryland shopping mall--gun free zone--three dead,
Washington DC naval shooting--gun free zone--13 dead,
Columbine shooting--gun free zone--13 dead,...
do I have to continue?

Gun show shootings--zero Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You don't even understand what YOU wrote, let alone what I wrote.

You're talking about allowing guns in classrooms and then stating that some colleges allow it but don't publicize it because it will upset the "bedwetting constituency". Guns, classrooms and "bedwetting constituency" all in the space of 2 sentences.

The "stupid" part of your scenario is that NO ONE has ever said that not allowing a handgun in such a scenario was optional. I don't think any state bans a handgun, as long as a CHL is present, in such a circumstance. That is why it was a stupid scenario to bring up.

You have yet to win on ONE point yet. Losing in just about every way possible. You break the law by carrying a handgun into a classroom where is is illegal to do so. You keep implying that you have some sort of right to carry a handgun wherever you please as long as you believe it is justified. 100% WRONG.

Yes, there have been killings in gun-free zones. Take that up with the people who have made them gun-free zones, not me. I am defending the right of people to make gun free zones. What you can't estimate is how many lives have been SAVED by instituting gun-free zones. As I stated in a different thread, I was in the army. The last thing I would want to see is arming of all the military men on the post. At least in a non-combat zone. The number of guys drunk or stoned on a weekend night was ridiculous. I could only imagine if everyone had access to a gun what might have happened.

There is very little to be gained by continuing this. You are one of the few people in this country who believes that the more guns the less killing there would be. I gave you several studies where it has been determined that that just is not true. I keep giving you instances of several specific locations where handguns are not allowed and you think you know better than those who have instituted the bans, totally ignoring the reasons why the bans are in place.

Live long and prosper.

I'm giving up on you. You have mischaracterized what I've written. Failed to understand simple things (on purpose I think) and keep insisting that I believe something that I haven't said. It's 5:30 AM and I can finally go to sleep but just think about all those people who died safe and secure in your "gun free" zones and ask yourself if they would have liked one person there to be armed, legal or not.

I'm giving up on you. You have mischaracterized what I've written. Failed to understand simple things (on purpose I think) and keep insisting that I believe something that I haven't said. It's 5:30 AM and I can finally go to sleep but just think about all those people who died safe and secure in your "gun free" zones and ask yourself if they would have liked one person there to be armed, legal or not. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you can think about all those people who have died in homes with guns that were there to protect them and their families. Many more than have died in gun-free zones. It goes both ways. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Please try to understand that non gun owners have rights too. Your last statement makes it obvious once again that you do not understand why gun free zones exist.

Whose rights are being violated? I have the right, RIGHT, to self defense and I chose whatever is available to exercise that right. I have the skill, the training, and the disposition to walk around armed. I choose to do so. That is my right.

Your right is not to defend yourself...(okay, I'll give you this) Your right is to defend yourself with anything but a gun. You choose not to go through the training, you choose not to develop the skill, and you choose to not to have to make a hard decision about taking a life in defense of you, your families, or an innocent bystander. You just don't like the hard choices.

So who has a greater right in a public place? That seems to be what is bugging you. You charge me with wanting greater rights to move about armed but then you turn around and say that YOU have greater rights that I don't walk around armed. Now pay attention, no one wants to be around a rapist, drug user, molester, or murderer but you might be doing that very thing since people conceal their intent and character. The same thing with my weapon. If you don't see it then you don't have to hyperventilate. Go to a gun show sometime. The only hyperventilating going on is for someone trying to close a deal. Your nerves or sensitivities are your problem. Don't try putting them on me.

In the classroom (which you have pointed out a couple of times) there could be an off duty police officer. I ASSUME that he is armed and I don't care. When you go to a public event do you ask who is a police officer? I doubt it, so your sensitivity is situational at best and irrational.

As so many people have talked about, it is the law of the land. Deal with it. Isn't that how it goes?