July 8, 2014 11:45 am -

Ohio State University has a no-guns-on-campus rule. It’s a safety issue. But gun advocates must always have their guns, as they believe their right to be armed at all times trumps any other concern others may have.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

No responses to Ammosexuals Suing University For Right To Bring Guns On Campus

  1. tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Stupid insists on announcing itself in the loudest possible ways.

  2. Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    The worst thing I had to worry about in college was the food.

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:50 pm

      Not acne or tough class scheduling, or, dare we mention it, a lack of sexual activity?

      • Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 8:55 pm

        Mostly I remember the god awful food.

        • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:58 pm

          OK, no Freshman 15, so a really good college experience, then!

  3. Pistol-Packing July 8th, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Always love the Colored Commentary of these articles. But excuse me Mr Deranged Person, before you start shooting up the school, can I have permission to go to my car first??? personally, I dont blame these people or teachers for that matter, to want to have the ability to protect themselves.

    With the recent shootings involving college’s. I am certain it is on peoples minds, Lets not forget, Virginia tech is still one of the most deadliest events to date.

    • fahvel July 8th, 2014 at 12:30 pm

      put your colt between your legs where it belongs and then giddyap!

      • Pistol-Packing July 8th, 2014 at 12:53 pm

        RIDEEEEE EM COWBOY !!!!!!!

  4. fahvel July 8th, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    imagine if all the dead young at kent state had been armed – they’da showed the militia whatz what, eh. The usa and it’s gun wackos are a terrifying image and absolutely nothing for the country to be remotely proud of.

  5. Red Eye Robot July 8th, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    The left’s obsession with gun control and getting gun owners under their thumb is akin to Glen Close’s Character Alex in Fatal Attraction. Heller V. DC settled it in june of 2008. Get over it already, move on, you lost. Since 08 we have expanded concealed carry, expanded protections for gun owners via stand your ground. and at the same time Gun Control has proven to be a disaster. The nation isn’t buying your crazy jabbering anymore.Mike Bloomberg and his millions haven’t moved the needle one iota. His group Malevolent Mayors Against Guns sees one of their members convicted of some felony or perversion every month. Gun control advocate and california state senator Leeland Yee was indicted on GUN SMUGGLING charges for crying out loud. Mom’s demand president Shannon Watts gets caught in a fabrication or outright lie every week. Even uber liberal Bill Maher handed Michael Moore his considerable ass on the topic of gun control on his show. the entire gun control movement is built on bogus factoids, discredited studies and bumper sticker appeals to ignorance. Americans have come to realize the gun control movement is made up of drunken babbling lunatics like Kevin de Leon

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:48 pm

      Quite a breathless rant there, pussy cat.

    • Yeah way July 9th, 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Sad but true.

      The anti-firearm hysteria now making its rounds throughout the “left” does nothing but distract from true liberal causes, like civil rights, economic justice and inequality.

      Combing the “Interwebs” for the latest anti-gun story may be entertaining to some of these new posters, but it really renders this formally great site just another far-left liberal mutual appreciation society.

      If my fellows liberal REALLY believed in what they lecture about the future effects of climate change and economic meltdown, they would be buying at LEAST a 410/.22 – even if just to provide a nice possum for their family’s dinner!

      You know, when the world’s food supply is interrupted.

      Or have we been lied to about THAT as well??

      In the meantime, I invite those so opposed to firearm ownership to advertise that fact with a proud sign on their mailbox. Because, right now, with America having the lowest “hot” burglary rate in the western world (Lott 2007, UNODC 2010)…those that don’t own a gun, but live in a safer America, are free riders.

      So stand up and be proud, gun-haters, and let your communities know!

  6. WhoIsMyNeighbor July 8th, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Maybe they should have started this campaign at Kent State…

  7. AmusedAmused July 8th, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Liberal academia has long been the right wing’s boogeyman. I therefore strongly suspect that the push to allow guns on campus is intended as a way to allow right-wing goons to intimidate faculty and students, and perhaps even kill anyone expressing views they don’t like under the cover of extremely expansive stand-your-ground laws.

    • FVS July 8th, 2014 at 10:35 pm

      Got paranoia much? Private firearm ownership is at an all time high and violent crime is as low as it has ever been in the post war era. The vast majority of gun crime is Black and Hispanic gang related. And yes I know speaking such obvious truths is going to bring out the racist boo birds. Call all the names, hurl the invectives call for deleting the post. None of it will change plain and simple truth.

      • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 11:43 pm

        Gun ownership is concentrated among a minority of citizens. Violent crime has been declining long before the increase in gun ownership, correlation is not causation, here’s proof:
        And, the vast majority of gun crime is not black and hispanic, but gun fetishists and NRA terrorists believe it to be so.

      • Yeah way July 9th, 2014 at 12:46 pm

        I agree that 95% of America’s gun violence is gang-related.
        But I would probably be more of the opinion that gangs and violence rise out of poverty and a sense of hopelessness and fear, as well as America’s disgusting inequality, than out of any “racial” lines.

        It just so happens that many of America’s poorest and more destitute communities, thanks largely to past (and present) prejudices, are visible minorities.

        Russia has 2-4 times the murder rate of the US, and ya don’t get much “whiter” than Ivan!

        But I DO agree with you 100% that if one takes inner-city poverty, gang and “war on drug” related crime out of the mix, America is not significantly more, or less, “homicidal” that anywhere else.

        It ain’t the GUNS, America, it’s your social conditions and inequality.

        Fix it, stop the anti-gun hysteria and address the TRUE causes of violence, or stop calling yourselves “liberals”.

        Civil disarmament is not a “liberal” solution – it is an authoritarian one.

        Stop it.

  8. RAPTOR555 July 8th, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Does the phrase ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ ring a bell?

    • AmusedAmused July 8th, 2014 at 2:44 pm

      Sure it does; the problem is that you don’t understand the legal meaning of “infringement”. Are you aware that the law is still on the books that the wholesale imprisonment of Japanese Americans based solely on their ethnic background does not amount to an infringement of their right to due process?

      • RAPTOR555 July 8th, 2014 at 4:46 pm

        How did the Japanese get into this conversation? I thought we we were talking about infringement of the Second Amendment. There is no such thing as a ‘legal’ meaning of the word. Here is the defination:


        1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

        verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
        2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 8th, 2014 at 5:04 pm

      You only quoted half of the amendment. You forgot the thing about having well regulated militias when this amendment was added to the constitution so the southern states would join the union. They needed the militias to chase down their escaped slaves.
      Quite an oversight I’d say.

      • FVS July 8th, 2014 at 6:11 pm

        Too bad but no court has ever ruled that the second clause is dependent on the first and I doubt they ever will.

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:35 pm

      Uhh, it starts with “A well regulated militia…” but that part has been thrown away by the NRA terrorists and its sycophants.

      • Yeah way July 9th, 2014 at 12:37 pm

        Lol – unbelievable. I blame your School system down there, I really do..,is this what the erstwhile “liberal” land has now become?? What the heck happened, did we merge with bizarro-history-revisionist-land?

        In order for militias to be formed, well-regulated or otherwise, it was necessary for citizens to not only have military-grade arms in their personal possession, but to be well-acquainted with their use. The better acquainted and more skilled, the more effective. And, one can easily surmise, the more trained and knowledgeable, the more easily regulated.

        Back to school T-o-T, and this time try to stay awake, ‘mkay?

        • FVS July 9th, 2014 at 8:22 pm

          In the context of the 18th century meaning of the term “well regulated” meant precisely that the militia was trained and competent in the use of firearms. Additionally also in the context of 18th century meanings the “militia” was comprised of all male citizens capable of bearing arms.

          • Yeah way July 9th, 2014 at 10:59 pm

            Agreed. This idea that the 2nd amendment was for squirrel hunting, bear defence and target practice is absurd. That citizens would have firearms for those purposes was a given, and was covered under state constitutions.

            At the federal level, the founders were very much referring to weaponry, not sport.

            Even more absurd are those that say the 2nd only covers owning “a musket”, lol.

            Therefore, I must presume, the 1st only covers pamphleteering and ye olde towne criers??


  9. guest July 8th, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    wait, do you really think that if someone wanted to shoot the school up that he/she would follow the rules?

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:45 pm

      Wait, do you really think that’s an insightful comment?

  10. madashellnow July 8th, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    When has a criminal ever obeyed the law? Duh! That’s why they are criminals.
    “The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.” – Col. Jeff Cooper

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 8:46 pm

      How’d that thought work out for you, Col. Jeff?

  11. FVS July 8th, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    Numerous studies have show that residential burglers when scoping out potential targets dismiss consideration of those homes with posted security systems. Now apply the same logic to the Individual determined to find a target rich environment with the least chance of encountering armed resistance. Do you think they are going to pick the place posted no guns allowed or one where open or concealed carry is encouraged?

    • tiredoftea July 8th, 2014 at 11:46 pm

      The data shows that self admitted gun fetishists are more likely targets of criminals who want guns. Second only to criminals who buy guns on the private market from gun fetishists who want easy cash for their objects of affection.

      • FVS July 9th, 2014 at 12:30 am

        You are clearly wrapped up in preconceived notion about gun owners. Their reasons for owning then are wide and various and are no more monolithic in their reasonsthan any other kind of collectors. But you will never see that because you have a gun fetish of your own.

        • tiredoftea July 9th, 2014 at 12:45 am

          You just go with that.

      • Yeah way July 9th, 2014 at 12:28 pm

        Lol @ “the data shows”…hilarious.

        “Scientists have found that…”
        “they say that…”
        “Studies have shown…”

        At any rate, it’s so nice to see that my liberal colleagues have started to come up with “clever” neologisms (ammosexual) to win debates. And here I thought only right wingers could be so creative (libtard, Obummer)…

        Great work!