We’re Here. We’re Armed. And We’re Not Going Away.
By Mitch Berg
This week is the planned protest by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus against the laws that require most American college and university campuses to be gun-free zones disarmed victim zones. These zones – where the law-abiding citizen, whether student or staffer, is enjoined from carrying a legally-permitted firearm that they have a permit to carry for self-defense.
These laws have contributed to the deaths of dozens of American high school and college students in the past twenty years.
During the week of April 21-25, 2008, thousands of college students throughout the United States, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of dangerous criminals and armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.
SCCC hosted its first national collegiate Empty Holster Protest during the week of October 22-26, 2007, on the campuses of approximately 125 U.S. colleges and universities. This second Empty Holster Protest will expand upon the concept of the first protest by placing greater emphasis on educating the uninformed. Protesters will focus on sharing the facts of “concealed carry” with students and faculty who may not be aware that concealed carry laws exist or that those laws differ on college campuses from most other locations.
I’m aware that an SCCC protest is being planned at Saint Cloud State. I’d welcome comments from participants from SCSU, or any other campuses. I expect campus administrations to attempt to “manage” these protests – and naturally will welcome word of any administration actions.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:07 am
Mitch,
While I know this issue is important to you, the fact remains (and Dana Rohrbacher among others agrees) that schools can pass what they like. While there have been about 150 shootings (that’s people, not incidents) since 1970, among issues in this country, this is a pimple on the ass of our major problems, yet you continue to waste.. errr.. spend time on it.
I wonder how many posts you’ve done on the ‘health’ of the national economy, or, since violence spiked in Iraq again, on ‘victory’ in Iraq (which you conflated conveniently with victory over AQI – or as I like to think of it, victory over a group that would never have existed but for our invasion and represents 3% of the resistance – but hey! any victory in a storm).
Seriously, I heard there were 26 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, and since last fall 20 public school students have died in shootings (not in school, just they’ve been killed), I think the jury is far from decided on the wisdom of arming hormone laden, poor-judgement showing teenagers with guns. Some clearly could handle it, others, clearly could not. Columbine (iirc) was committed by students whose parents respected guns and gun rights – other shootings have been done by those not educated in gun rights – so eductation isn’t the panacea here. And you know what else isn’t? Extremism, and vitriole, and using rhetoric intended to offend, rather than find solutions. I’d be far more inclined to arm teachers – and have little worry about such a tactic, than arm students under 18 or even 21. If the drinking age is an indication of ability to make adult decisions, then perhaps it’s a good marker for whether you can restrain your emotions and have a good perspective on how long and precious life really is. So, Mitch, what age, what test? What test could possible judge someone’s maturity to handle firearms? I’ve read the decision pathways for teens tears itself apart at about 12 and rebuilds through 19 or 20.. teen suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death after drunk driving – both show manifestly poor judgement – so what test can we possibly give to prove that a teen, under the stress of lost loves, of bullying, of parental or pressure to excel, may not crack, or blame others – I mean, blaming others isn’t a pandemic in our country right??
So, the key question Mitch, isn’t about ‘victim dissarmament’ as you so inflamatorily put it, it’s about what age is acceptable. People irrationally fear guns, I quite agree, but conversely, they aren’t the solution to all ills – and in the hands of some teens, certainly are a poor idea – so how do you see to it that those who are capable CAN carry, but those who aren’t, don’t?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:43 am
pb,
Ever hear that brevity is the soul of wit?
“arming hormone laden, poor-judgement showing teenagers” Minimum age to buy a handgun, purchase ammunition for it, and have a carry permit is 21. So all your whining about teens at 12 to 19 is off point.
What is your justification that someone can legally carry everywhere, but on campus, solely because that person is a student? The student doesn’t have to be 21. A 50 year old student is just as prohibited by the university.
And be clear, it is the university policy towards students that is the problem. Non-students and non-employees can legally carry all the time on campus. Because other than the student or employer relationship, the university has no ability to deny carry.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
yet you continue to waste.. errr.. spend time on it.
What the hell do you care what Mitch chooses to spend time on? Jeez. Could you possibly suck any more than you do?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Hmmm… schools can pass and authorize what they like. Of course they can. And folks who disagree can speak up.
Isn’t that neat?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:09 am
While I know this issue is important to you, the fact remains (and Dana Rohrbacher among others agrees)
With all due respect, who cares what Rep. Rohrbacher thinks? I don’t consult politicians for approval for my opinions – merely seek out ones that agree with me.
that schools can pass what they like.
Right. And consumers – students, parents, et al – can make their opinions known.
While there have been about 150 shootings (that’s people, not incidents) since 1970, among issues in this country, this is a pimple on the ass of our major problems, yet you continue to waste.. errr.. spend time on it.
For starters – what Yossarian said. I spend time on what I want to.
And while school shootings at all levels are statistically minuscule, they have an emotional and political impact far out of proportion to their numbers; on the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, many more died in drug/gang related shootings – and that happens every day, day in, day out.
But politicians are buffaloed into passing stupid laws based vastly more on these “statistically insignificant” but emotionally-fraught crimes.
I wonder how many posts you’ve done…
My search engine, and Google, await. You’re free to count ’em up yourself.
Seriously, I heard there were 26 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, and since last fall 20 public school students have died in shootings (not in school, just they’ve been killed), I think the jury is far from decided on the wisdom of arming hormone laden, poor-judgement showing teenagers with guns.
I said nothing about arming teenagers. Not one thing. Ever.
Some clearly could handle it, others, clearly could not.
And it’s irrelevant. Nobody has mentioned “arming teenagers”; merely allowing adults with carry permits – who have passed background checks, have clean records, and know the law – to exercise their legal right to defend themselves. That includes students of legal age (21 in Minnesota, less in other states), teachers, staff, parents who happen to be in the building, whomever – provided that they are legally entitled to do so.
And you know what else isn’t? Extremism, and vitriole, and using rhetoric intended to offend, rather than find solutions.
There is nothing extreme about my position (other than what you’re falsely imputing to it!). While the GOP has led the way on this issue, many Democrats are with the good guys, here, too.
I’d be far more inclined to arm teachers – and have little worry about such a tactic
Very true.
But my post is about a student protest.
than arm students under 18 or even 21.
Nobody, anywhere, advocated arming students under 18.
If the drinking age is an indication of ability to make adult decisions, then perhaps it’s a good marker for whether you can restrain your emotions and have a good perspective on how long and precious life really is.
So how old were you when the Army let you tote an M16 around?
So, Mitch, what age, what test?
I’m more or less comfortable with Minnesota’s current law. I am comfortable with a much higher standard for people between 18 and 21, but I think they should be able to qualify; I think it’s absurd that a 20-year-old who’s served in Iraq and is a serving member of the Guard and Reserve can’t qualify for a carry permit (yes, it’s happened).
I’ve read the decision pathways for teens tears itself apart at about 12 and rebuilds through 19 or 20
Read it? Heh. I’m living it right now.
So, the key question Mitch, isn’t about ‘victim dissarmament’ as you so inflamatorily put it,
…and accurately…
it’s about what age is acceptable. People irrationally fear guns, I quite agree, but conversely, they aren’t the solution to all ills – and in the hands of some teens, certainly are a poor idea – so how do you see to it that those who are capable CAN carry, but those who aren’t, don’t?
Again – just to be clear, I’m not advocating a change in existing permit law. And the record shows that carry permit holders who meet all the criteria required to get the permit, whatever the legal age in the relevant state, are pretty invariably trustworthy; if there were an epidemic of 19-year-old permit-holders committing crimes and causing mayhem, we’d have heard about it. The very process of getting the permit – the background checks, the training, the cost and the legal hoop-jumping – strips out a lot of the chaff.
Permit holders of whatever age commit crimes at a rate about two orders of magnitude below the general population. Those are pretty good odds, if you’re a gambler.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
peevish,
IL is one of only two states that has no concealed carry. You need a special licence in IL to purchase or possess ammunition. Chicago has even more draconian handgun laws.
Using Chicago stats hurts rather than helps your arguement.
Anti gun groups also love to include 17-18-19 year old gang bangers as children in their stats. Any idea of how many of those 20 were shot by a Police officer doing his duty?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:23 am
A half dozen of my holsters are walking around the SCSU campus this week. They are, regrettably, empty,
April 21st, 2008 at 10:24 am
What JPMN said. I skipped past that part of your comment, since I have an upcoming post on the subject, but he’s right; Chicago’s gun laws are worse than DC’s. It is for all practical purposes impossible for the law-abiding citizen to own a gun in Chicago.
And while the carnage in Chicago is awful (and subject of an upcoming post), what JP said; I’d be interested in knowing the circumstances of each shooting. Five’ll get you a hundred that the vast majority were criminal-on-criminal. Tragic and awful, to be sure, but clearly not something you can lay at the feet of the law-abiding gun owner, since there are none of them in Chicago.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Note that the rule also applies at law schools and grad schools where everybody already has a 4-year college degree, so the students are at least 21 years old and presumably well educated, responsible, reasonable people.
William Mitchell College of Law (alma mater of Chief Justice Warren Burger) is on Summit Avenue in St. Paul – very nice neighborhood, full of mansions, no crime there. But the students can’t afford to live there, they ride the bus to night classes from cheaper neighborhoods, and back home again.
Typical Mitchell law student night student gets home between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. They can’t carry a gun home because they can’t have it at school; they must leave it at home and go to class empty handed.
So we’ve got a college-educated, career oriented young woman riding the bus home to a cheap neighborhood at night . . . unarmed.
Why is that a good idea, exactly?
.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mitch, you complain about ‘victim dissarmament zones’ at colleges, students at colleges are teens – so you CLEARLY DID say something about arming teens, and was the point I brought to you the last time this came up. I don’t read Yossarian, he’s a pig, and that you don’t reign him in is to your discredit, not mine.
As well (and thanks for inventing an issue that I didn’t bring up), obviously Dana Rohrbacher is a politician, and so is George Bush, and you clearly care about his opinion – but that notwithstanding – the point was that it’s not a violation (not one whit of one) of the 2nd amendment which you’ve complained in the past is being routinely violated, or more correctly I suppose, that you are ‘standing up for’, but this isn’t about the 2nd amendment – not in the least… as Rohrbacher clearly acknowledged, and you did as well, schools can do what they want and there is absolutely no 2nd amendment concern whatsoever.
My question was quite serious, as was my commment (unlike the obfuscating about ‘criminals’ – teens are criminals in fact, as far as gangs go, most gangs have a majority membership who are teens – setting a pretty clear example that teens aren’t always competent to handle firearms – some are, but again, how do you test? The fact that it was ‘criminal on criminal’ doesn’t have a darn thing to do with it- I was making a very clear point and one you seemed all to happy to avoid – specifically that teens are ill-equipped to handle firearms. Obfuscating that you didn’t mention teens in the past directly doesn’t mean you didn’t mention them indirectly.. if you can’t put 2+2 together to get that advocating for ‘non victim dissarmament’ and for arming students (which you’ve done in the past) doesn’t equate to arming teens – well.. that lack of logic is on you, not me – colleges have teens whether you want to (or not) acknowledge you are advocating for ‘students to be armed’ doesn’t matter at all.
The point I made to you a couple weeks back (as memory serves) is that students are really competent to make those decisions (or rather that MANY – probably too many arent. So, in the interest, unlike what you chose to go off on, of having a rational discussion – what age limit would you put? What test would you give? My suggestion is 21.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I think peevish just rolled, in D&D terms, a “critical miss” with his post.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Kevin, Peev rolls a critical miss with almost EVERY ONE OF HIS endless scribblings. It’s a wonder he doesn’t trip and decapitate himself on a vorpal sword.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Good grief, Peev. You hijack threads around here all the time and you expect Mitch to “reign (sic)” in your detractors? Yoss is simply calling you out for your habitually rude behavior. It’s Mitch’s blog and he should be able to run it as he sees fit, just as I run my blog as I see fit, as does Yoss, LearnedFoot, Badda, BradC and so many other bloggers who congregate here. If you want to control the debate, start your own blog.
When you visit people’s homes, do you rearrange the furniture?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
As much as I hate to respond to Peevish Boy,
students at colleges are teens
Indisputable fact. Many are.
so you CLEARLY DID say something about arming teens
Absolute BS. Gee, how many of those teachers are teenagers? You are self-contained satire, Peev.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Mr. D, I’ve been keeping an ongoing tally of the different insults Peev levels at me–despite his insistence that he never reads my comments–because they’re unintentional comedy gold. Granted, calling me a “pig” is a little crude, as Peev comments go, but in the past he’s let me know, by gum, that I’m “not worth beans as a person,” which stung me to the quick with its rapier-like sliciness. Then there was the time, after he didn’t read any of my comments, no way, uh uh, he said “If the earth swallowed you up, it would most likely spit you back out,” which had a certain poetic quality to it, as insults go, what with me being rejected by Mother Earth and all that.
Of course, Peev is a rampaging butt monkey who enjoys intimate contact with freshly shaven cats. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
You’re right, Yoss – those are comedy gold. It would appear that Peev’s still only part way through using that box of Dixie Riddle Cups, though. Either that or he’s re-writing “Think and Grin” material from 1970s era back issues of Boys Life magazine.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Either that or he’s re-writing “Think and Grin”
Hah!
That was a Dennis-Miller-calibre subreference!
April 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
So, in the interest, unlike what you chose to go off on, of having a rational discussion – what age limit would you put? What test would you give? My suggestion is 21.
Give the man a cigar! He should have already seen that in order to (legally) purchase a handgun; buy ammunition for his/her handgun; have a carry permit, a citizen must be 21!
So now pb supports allowing students who have carry permits to, carry, on campus.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Mr. D, Yoss has, at times, made all kinds of rather ugly comments, far from reigning ME in, he only served to prove he’s a pig. Mitch (otoh), doesn’t restrain any of his sychophants, but happily pillories anyone who disagrees with him.
Mitch – I tried to have a real discussion – you swung and missed – not my fault. You advocated students carrying guns on college campuses, when exactly weren’t there teens involved? Or were you talking only about graduate students??
Once again, your flame board err… blog, degenerates into insult barrages rather than having anything like a real discussion.
So Mitch, let me use small sentences – what age do you think people are generally competent to have a conceal and carry permit – on campus or off. You freely admit it’s a statistical irrelevancy, and my point wasn’t that it doesn’t carry weight and lead to stupid laws, but, again as you ignored, it’s that you INSIST on NOT talking about anything that might make you GOP’ers look bad – but back to the point of the discussion, which both YOU and your boot-lickers willingly sidestep – what age, what test?
It’s a serious discussion, I assume you agree since you’ve put out about 400 posts on the topic, so rather than just throw flame, what do you propose FOR COLLEGES – where teens go – you know, the teens you never suggested having guns.. but actually DID suggest it??
The logic you all use is, to put it politely, conveniently obtuse when you want it to be. You focus on things which really weren’t the point – try instead to answer the question – please?
April 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
BTW Dennis Miller has turned into a clown – his suck up to the right is the only classic joke remaining to him, it’s why he’s both a. no longer popular and b. no longer routinely on the air. People see through his shallow crap and turn him off. That you like him, is a reflection on you.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
There’s that “reigning” thing again. Peev, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Of you go, you little rampaging butt monkey.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
OK. I’ll try this again:
Mitch, you complain about ‘victim dissarmament zones’ at colleges, students at colleges are teens
If memory serves, that’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque – or close to it. I “complain” about disarming legal carry permit holders who, by definition, can not be teenagers in Minnesota.
Unless you can show where I’ve called for changing the law, really, your statement is fallacious.
so you CLEARLY DID say something about arming teens, and was the point I brought to you the last time this came up.
No, you exercised a logical fallacy to infer something I neither said nor implied.
You need to just let it drop.
I don’t read Yossarian, he’s a pig
You might be investing just a *tad* too much in this…
As well (and thanks for inventing an issue that I didn’t bring up), obviously Dana Rohrbacher is a politician, and so is George Bush, and you
clearly care about his opinion
…well, it depends. I don’t ask the President’s opinion on, say, cooking, or playing the guitar, for example – because he is no authority on the subject.
Just like Rep. Rohrbacher is no authority on this issue!
the point was that it’s not a violation (not one whit of one) of the 2nd amendment which you’ve complained in the past is being routinely violated, or more correctly I suppose, that you are ’standing up for’, but this isn’t about the 2nd amendment – not in the least… as Rohrbacher clearly acknowledged, and you did as well, schools can do what they want and there is absolutely no 2nd amendment concern whatsoever.
It matters not an iota to me whether it’s strictly a constitutional issue or not – plenty of moral issues have no bearing on the constitution.
My question was quite serious, as was my commment (unlike the obfuscating about ‘criminals’
The fact that you call it “obfuscating” shows that you really aren’t following, here. I’m referring to the right of carry permit holders to carry on campus. Carry permit holders are by definition not criminals; a criminal record is a disqualifier.
– teens are criminals in fact, as far as gangs go, most gangs have a majority membership who are teens – setting a pretty clear example that teens aren’t always competent to handle firearms – some are, but again, how do you test?
Doesn’t matter, since it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. I am referring to permit holders. Permit holders in Minnesota must be 21. That’s really all there is to it.
The fact that it was ‘criminal on criminal’ doesn’t have a darn thing to do with it
It has everything to do with the violence in Chicago – unless you think there is no qualitative difference between, say, a drug dealer killing a rival, and a parent accidentally shooting their child.
You do see there’s a difference, don’t you?
I was making a very clear point and one you seemed all to happy to avoid – specifically that teens are ill-equipped to handle firearms.
It was clear, and irrelevant!
Obfuscating that you didn’t mention teens in the past directly doesn’t mean you didn’t mention them indirectly.
Tu quoque.
So, in the interest, unlike what you chose to go off on, of having a rational discussion – what age limit would you put?
For about the fifth time; the one that already exists under existing state laws for getting a permit to carry. In Minnesota, it’s 21. Other states vary.
That’s really all there is to it.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
a. no longer popular and b. no longer routinely on the air.
Actually, his radio show is doing quite well in syndication, last I checked.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Mitch – I tried to have a real discussion – you swung and missed – not my fault.
Peev, you threw your pitch out in the parking lot while I stood in the batters box wondering when you were going to enter the park.
You advocated students carrying guns on college campuses
WRONG! For the seventh or eight time; I advocated legal permit holders carrying. Students (over 21, in MN), staff, it matters not.
when exactly weren’t there teens involved?
When teens weren’t deemed eligible under Minnesota law to get carry permits.
Once again, your flame board err… blog, degenerates into insult barrages rather than having anything like a real discussion.
Which would mean a lot more if you didn’t follow it up with…:
So Mitch, let me use small sentences – what age do you think people are generally competent to have a conceal and carry permit – on campus or off.
Let me write in words with one syllable (oops); what the law says. 21 years old. That is all. There is no more.
You freely admit it’s a statistical irrelevancy, and my point wasn’t that it doesn’t carry weight and lead to stupid laws, but, again as you ignored, it’s that you INSIST on NOT talking about anything that might make you GOP’ers look bad – but back to the point of the discussion, which both YOU and your boot-lickers willingly sidestep – what age, what test?
The law, the law, the law, the law, the law.
The law.
The. Law.
The law.
The law. The law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law.
It’s a serious discussion, I assume you agree since you’ve put out about 400 posts on the topic, so rather than just throw flame, what do you propose FOR COLLEGES – where teens go – you know, the teens you never suggested having guns.. but actually DID suggest it??
What the law – the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law, the law – says.
The logic you all use is, to put it politely, conveniently obtuse when you want it to be.
Peev. The law.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Peev,
Let me help you get around the logical fallacy that is gut-shooting your argument.
Above, I wrote (consistently with everything I’ve written on this subject) with emphasis added by me:
“These zones – where the law-abiding citizen, whether student or staffer, is enjoined from carrying a legally-permitted firearm that they have a permit to carry for self-defense.”
Having a permit necessarily means being a law-abiding citizen and meeting the criteria for issuance – of which a minimum age, either 21 (in most states), or occasionally 18 or 19, is a part.
So your little tangent about arming teenagers is rendered false with a simple reading of what I actually wrote.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mother of Christ, Peev couldn’t get a Critical Hit if his threat range was 9-20!
Like Baldrick’s record in Cunning Plans.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Peev’s good for a rant and a rave
He’s emboldened by “Internet Brave.”
We’ve invoked D&D
To make fun of Peev
Gary Gygax just rolled in his grave.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Peev fancies himself an intellectual comet
Structuring his screeds just like Wallace & Gromit
With his faux erudition
And strawman positions
He’s more like a 55-gallon drum of duck vomit
April 21st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Meter, Mr. D. Meter.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Taking stock of where the discussion is now, Peev and Mitch agree that people over age 21 who have been issued a permit to carry a gun should be allowed to carry that gun on-campus.
Declare victory and move on, Mitch.
.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Not only meter, Kermit, but Mr. D insulted Wallace & Gromit in the process.
Sorry, D.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Declare victory
No need to “declare” anything. There’s a general, ambient sense of victory about me that overrides most static.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Everybody’s a critic. I’ll try again.
Peev’s arguments quite often fizzle
Into pseudo-intelligent drizzle
With his faux erudition
And strawman positions
Does he fail logic tests? For shizzle!
April 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
And apologies to Wallace & Gromit. Unfortunately, vomit doesn’t rhyme with Rube Goldberg.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Geez, what a thread.
Obtuse doesn’t even begin to describe Peev today.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Mitch, Peeve does have a point. You will find in college students that are 17 years old. And white kids. And right handed kids. And straight kids. And male kids. So to summarize, you repeatedly advocate arming 17 year old white,male kids who are right handed and straight. WHAT THE HELL????? Friggin ageist, homophobic, racist, sexist, dominant handist!!! No wonder Peeve has to spend so much time keeping you honest.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Waiting for the comments section to download (is it just slower for me lately?), I sat there thinking..35 comments…lots of Peev I’ll bet, probably Peev right off the bat and then retorts and then Peev and then retorts and..maybe some limericks…Finally the comments section came up and SURPRISE, SURPRISE! Peev is first and it’s long and then retorts and then….yes, limericks!
All comfortingly familiar, albeit annoying (except for the limericks).
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Must… write… limerick… using… Rube… Goldberg!!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Peevish: start paying attention. In Minnesota, the minimum age for a carry permit is 21. Teenagers — here — don’t get carry permits. While many people do legally carry on college campuses here, none of them are teenagers.
That said, my older daughter is about to turn 18, and will likely get a carry permit this summer — probably ND, but maybe ME. It won’t do her any good in Minnesota, but if she chooses to carry in North Dakota or Missouri, that’ll be just fine.
Chill. And try to keep up.