Frankly, when I hear garbage ideas like "we'd be safer if everyone had a gun," I am glad I no longer teach.  Personally, were I in the classroom and students were allowed to carry, I would find another occupation. Life is too short.  But that is just what the right wing and the extremists for guns-in-the-classroom issue want.  I really believe the radical right will look for any opportunity to intimidate academics to "talk to liberals, if they must," as Coulter has said, "with baseball bats" -- or guns).  There can be no "academic freedom" with guns in the classroom.

Of course Tech is not all that "liberal" a school. With its large ag, vet, business, and engineering schools, the few departments which skew left of center get swamped.  But stereotype gets slapped on no matter what the reality.  It suits Lynn Cheney and David Horowitz's campaign, so what the heck (sarcasm). Those misguided zealots don't even know the actual meaning of "liberal arts"  They think its a political statement.  :-)

Taking the sarcasm hat off for a moment, do you know how much concealed carry on campus would have deterred the masacre at Virginia Tech?  Not in the slightest because the guy was planning on killing himself anyway.  I don't necessarily have the same aversion to allowing teachers to carry (it's kind of like allowing pilots to carry), but arming students?  No thanks.

But to be perfectly frank, Governor Kaine is supposed to be setting education policy in our public schools.  If he wants to allow individual boards of visitors to make those decisions, fine, but he is still effectively establishing the policy that "I don't have a problem with guns in schools as long as you don't have a problem with guns in schools."  I would prefer that he spent a little more time defining precisely what his own policy or vision is on this issue before he left it up to the individual schools to determine how to implement it.

So then the question becomes, do concealed weapons on campus create or impede said "safe environment".

I would argue impede.  Something about young 20-something kids, combined with the emotions of a college experience (being away from home, stresses of class, "romance", etc.. combined with a lack of life experience), the indiscretions of youth and the prevalence of alcohol on campus just don't add up to the "safer" column.

I mean, I am about as pro gun as someone can get. I like to shoot and often. That being said, why in the world would someone even want to take a gun to school. I would seriously look at a dude I saw packing on campus as a total nutjob.

There must be some common sense here though. In the fall, there have been many times I have wanted to leave the woods in the early morning and go straight to class and not drop off at the house to unload my rifle. Or leave class in the afternoon to go for a late afternoon hunt. Also, I do keep my pistol under my seat or in my glovebox often. I don't think this should be a big deal.

But I repeat...If I was sitting in class and a dudes/dudette's jacket fell open and I spied a piece of hardware, or saw an ankle holster, I would either A. Think the person was off duty law enforcement. or B. a total idiot. Am I alone in this. Why can't we look at this as a simple common sense issue.

Dysart did not return phone calls or an e-mail message seeking comment Monday. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he helped Dysart start the organization and added that similar groups may soon be formed on other campuses in the commonwealth.

By contrast, the VCDL's point is that 'it's ridiculous that in you can't bring your rifle with you when you go to view the original copy of the bill of rights, which itself guarantees the right to bear arms.'  I'm sorry, but that argument is stupid, crazy and generally poorly thought out.  The VCDL is to the NRA what abortion clinic bombers are to the Catholic Church.

I doubt allowing concealed weapons would've stopped Cho, and the Blacksburg area echoed those sentiments in a survey conducted that week. He was a suicidal, insane mass murderer who planned the attack months ahead of time so concealed weapons definitely wouldn't have been a deterrent. Besides, we've had shootings at courthouses, police stations, CIA headquarters and on Capitol Hill so even places with security detail and guards are vulnerable. VCDL, NRA and other gun cults seem to think that loosening concealed carry laws will mean more people will actually want to carry concealed weapons and more people will have guns in general. At least Virginia doesn't have a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-never "self-defense" law like Florida and a dozen other states.

Groups like this argue that it is their constitutional right to carry, as well as their right to defend themselves. They should be reminded that colleges are institutions and in some cases (especially regarding liability) very very far from the rest of the world.

As someone who lived in a dorm for four years in college, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone having a gun there in a close-quarters communal space where there's drug and alcohol use, depressed students and a good number of immature idiots in general.

There is no such things as a FEDERAL RIGHT.  There are FEDERAL LAWS and what the federal governemt perceives to be its right.  Like a unitary executive and an undeclared war.

Just in case you need reminding - The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of esential individual rights.  Sometimes refered to as freedoms.

So answer this one question, just this one:

In The Bill of Rights, which lays out our esential individual freedoms, why would the founding fathers GRANT THE RIGHT to the STATE to BEAR ARMS?  They say NOTHING of the state elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

Why of all the places in the Constitution to put such a little side bar item such as "all weapons are belonging to the state except where the federal goverment thinks otherwise" would the writers put "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in a BILL OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

"Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

Aparently Alexander Hamilton didn't foresee the "NANNY STATE" where grown men and women didn't feel they could be responsible for their own actions, yet were more concerned about putting their fears on others.

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Looks like Alex was right. WE EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT, the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE PEOPLE.  Or, that is, as it should have been before people began believing that by passing a law you can solve a problem.  And if the little ole Constitution is SOOOOOO antiquated, then I guess you have exactly the President, and SCOTUS, you deserve.

Or perhaps AL-A-CARTE is more to your taste.  KKKARL Rove is with you on that one.

I don't think it's a cop-out for Kaine to say it should be up to the individual school, and I actually think thats probably the best approach.

This is not a policy question it is a question of protection our children. A stand must be taken.

I am against guns on campus, but clearly the "let each school decide" is a cop out.

For State institutions the Governor appoints Board Members (and I think they may have to be confirmed by General Assembly) so any actual backlash would have to go through elected officials (which can simply say they won't remove Board members for "political reasons").  In fact, it adds another political factor into the administration of these Uni's and that's just never good.

I know that if I'm a police officer arriving on the scene of a shooting, I'm not likely to read someone waving a gun his rights and what are my rights if I kill someone who swings around and points a weapon at me before they had what a lawyer might argue was a reasonable chance to see my uniform and lower his weapon?

YOU must be 21 years old to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. VA Residents under the age of 21 are NOT permitted to buy a handgun.  In order to get a Concealed Carry Permit you must show that you have obtained a safety/training certificate.

NOT all "students" are dewy fresh outta Mommy's basement.  Many of US are adult students and well beyond any legal age restrictions.

College is NOT an extension of High School.  If your child is unable to obey the law and act like an ADULT, then perhaps College and life away from Mommy is more than can be expected of them.  Life is NOT ALL ABOUT THE CHILDREN.  Except for the U.S., this is an ADULT world where people are expected to be responsible and accountable for their actions - with consequences to follow.

But as recent events have taught us, we expect more from a six week old puppy than we do from our children or our politicians.

There is NO difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Both sides use FEAR to control the sheep.  "Democrats are going to turn your children into homo's" BAAAAA.  "Republicans are going to shoot your kids at school" BAAAA.  Add in Climate Change, Ossama, WMD, Trans Fat, super duper really secret NSA wiretaps, and missing white girls and it's a wonder our little world can function.

Here is a comment from one Republican that caught my attention:

"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Thank you RUDY!

How is the discussion in this thread any different?  It isn't.  Why are people willing to turn their entire life over to the government rather than be responsible for their own actions and decisions? Because, "The police are here to protect us".  NO THEY ARE NOT.  Police are an extension of the government and act on behalf of the government.  Police ensure the safety of the government so that it can collect TAXES. The days of citizen police are long gone.

Specific to VT - If Cho hadn't used a gun, he would have used a bomb.  If he couldn't use a bomb, he'd have used a chemical.  He HATED people.  None specific, just in general.  He was in pain and I guess like a rabid dog he'd harm those he thought were causing that pain.  There is not one thing anyone could have done to stop Cho.  Some tragedies have no explanation, and no fix.  No matter what idiotic "solution/recommendation" the VT panel puts forward, it's just for show.  Just enough for the SoccerMommies to FEEL better and VT to not loose any MONEY.

Because that's what it's all about right?  How we FEEL.  Do you FEEL safe even though you are less so?  Sure you do.  That's the NSA wiretapping working on your weak spine.  Jim Webb capitulated but by damn he is a handsome fella.  We love Jim.  It's not about what Jim does it's how we FEEL about Jim.  Right?

Anyway, some of you need to get your facts straight.  I haven't heard of one proposal to allow High School students to carry guns.  The only High School issue I am aware of is that CCW holders cannot be harassed when picking their children up from school.  People who own guns are parents too you know.

Now go buy some more duct tape and be sure to report any suspicious activity!  Your government depends on you - to be a sheep.

There is not one thing anyone could have done to stop Cho.

Except maybe send him home to the community that created him when 200 students signed a petition asking not to have to take classes with him...

Or flunked him out of school instead of mentoring/tutoring his sociopathic ass...

Or send him home when he started stalking women on campus...

Or throw him out of school when he was judged a mentally impaired...

Or prevented him from purchasing a gun after being judged mentally impaired.

Yeah, other than those five things there was nothing anyone could do. 

But, your right, thus far no one has figured out how to expel Bat Snit Crazy people from society.  Especially when they are as stealthy as Cho.  He was a sleeper.

But just imagine living in a society where being "involentarily commited" was easier.  I am 100% positive there'd be an explosion of crazy people all of a sudden.  Especially those who don't necessarily share the current political view of the government.

Except maybe send him home to the community that created him

It is no unrelated accident that NOVA endures near universal anger management issues in its drivers, schools, and public places.  It is a classic Skinner Box environment. 

Note that the lowest violent crime rate is in NOVA, with the highest in Hampton Roads and "central" Virginia.  "West Central" and "Southside" are about double NOVA's violent crime rate.

I'm referring to an environment where kids can be allowed to grow up so alienated that they hiddenly seethe with righteous homicidal rage. A place where people commonly menace others with their auto's yet couldn't abide a face to face confrontation. A place with a thin veneer of community and a growing anger.