Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? - Page 10

Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

This is a discussion on Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? within the Featured Topics forums, part of the Welcome To DefensiveCarry.com category; Originally Posted by Rhinoman I'm not sure who said it, but a good quote to illustrate your point is, "Your right to throw a punch ...

Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 355
Like Tree631Likes

Thread: Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

  1. #136
    VIP Member Array Rhinoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    2,549
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinoman View Post
    I'm not sure who said it, but a good quote to illustrate your point is, "Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose".
    It was bothering me, so I did some research.

    "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins." This quote was attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
    Chicagobill likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. 74-96.

    An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. ~George Eliot,

  2. #137
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Cousin Tex, don't let it sadden you toooo much. The UT "rally" likely had a turn-out of...dozens. Please recall Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head. If there’s any truth to the observation, one wonders what to make of today’s college professors?
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  3. #138
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinoman View Post
    It was bothering me, so I did some research.

    "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins." This quote was attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
    Glad you straightened us up on that Rhino. I though it was attributed to Heavyweight Champion...Larry Holmes! I knew it wasn't Michael Spinks, 'cuz NObody EVER understood a single WORD that he said.
    Chicagobill likes this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #139
    VIP Member Array Rhinoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    2,549
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Glad you straightened us up on that Rhino. I though it was attributed to Heavyweight Champion...Larry Holmes! I knew it wasn't Michael Spinks, 'cuz NObody EVER understood a single WORD that he said.
    My money was on Holmes until I looked it up.
    Retired USAF E-8. 74-96.

    An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. ~George Eliot,

  6. #140
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    838
    Having written about this subject, I can find no problem with allowing legally-armed students having guns on campus. So far as I have been able to discern, I don't believe there has been a single incident involving a legally-armed student harming someone on campus. If anyone knows of such an incident, please advise.
    MIKECIB, Cricket, baren and 1 others like this.

  7. #141
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Well Dave, there WAS once a "legally-armed" leggy redhead that broke my heart on campus. But that was...a long time ago.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  8. #142
    Member Array packnrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    state of jefferson
    Posts
    323
    i see no reason hat guns should be banned from any school any were in this country.

    as law abiding people we will do no harm.
    as crooks go they just do not care about any law anyhow.

    now as to "special" places. please define them.
    and why we should not be allowed to protect ourselves there.
    but on the flip i can understand "special places" (not just in schools) where only the guards should have guns, but they should be very well trained and be very proficient with them as well as "other" ways to protect those within said areas.


    .

  9. #143
    Member Array codan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    124
    CO has had campus CC for several years.

    I'm a prof in CO and I've managed to carry for 3 years without
    - shooting anyone
    - threatening anyone
    - shooting anything
    - being discovered by anyone
    - even discussing it with anyone

    By carrying a gun I give myself a good chance at surviving at 'active shooter' situation and might even give my students the same.

    Damn right there should be CC on campus. A campus is a prime target for nuts and terrorists.

  10. #144
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Ya' know what? There are some very effective, very inexpensive, relatively impenetrable, door-jamming devices available for hotel-staying travelers. They work especially well with the concrete block walls, metal door jams & metal doors associated with most schools. I went to my local School Board & offered to buy one for every teacher, in every room, of our county's school system. Seemed to me a fine way to minimize extended access in an "active shooter" scenario. My offer was...declined. Seems they believe their teachers incapable of responsibly limiting unauthorized access to these devices by students...and active shooters. It's no wonder they fear guns. They fear...everything. Mostly, lawsuits.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  11. #145
    Senior Member Array SteveMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    So, as soon as you allow someone on your land, it becomes a "public venue" and thus YOUR rights can't be infringed upon, but YOU can infringe on the rights of others?
    In that case, I'll assume you never had anyone but your immediate family on your land. If you've had non-family on the land, it is now a public venue (by your definition: a business owner makes his property public instead of private when he allows customers on it). Being a public venue, if anyone comes on your land, they are allowed to exercise their rights as they deem fit, and you are not allowed to prevent them from doing so.
    Right?

    Life is a two-way street.
    You can't sit and cry that your rights are being infringed upon, yet give yourself absolution for infringing on the rights of others.


    As for the "strawman" argument mentioned in another post of yelling "fire" in a theater: It's far from a strawman. It's a direct comparison of the concept that no one is allowed to infringe on one's right with regards to the 2A, while accepting that "I cannot 100% exercise my right at any time I want" with regards to 1A.
    Please, go into that theatre and yell "fire".

    When the dust settles, be comfortable knowing that you will not be prosecuted or sued because those actions would violate your First Amendment Rights. Just claim "I exercised my First Amendment Rights" and you'll be allowed to just go home an d live your live as you normally do.



    Do you really not realize that we all have rights, but are not to infringe on other's rights in exercising our own?

    Again, with respect to what is in BOLD you are simply not correct.
    I will explain why you are employing a straw man argument in the context of this thread.

    In the context of this thread you are insinuating that yelling FIRE in a theater is a bad thing, harmful to others, inciting chaos or intending harm to others in the theater and therefore is not protected under 1A. You hold this up as an example of why legally carrying a firearm isn't protected under 2A on a campus. By default since you are equating the two, then you must think that carrying a firearm is inherently a bad as your example of yelling FIRE in theater is bad? If so, you are assuredly on the wrong forum.

    What happens in the event of an actual fire and one yells FIRE attempting to warn and protect other movie goers? Is that bad or harmful to others? What civil suit would be filed against this person? I do not believe we would want to infringe upon a person yelling FIRE in an actual emergency.

    You sir, do indeed have a strawman argument, because you are incorrectly equating two very different things. UNLESS you consider legally carrying a firearm to be analogous to inciting riot by yelling FIRE in a theater?


    So you will better understand....
    You are employing a straw man argument because you are equating a harmful and illegal activity with a perfectly legal and harmless activity. You doing this to bolster your position that a right may be infringed upon. The only way your argument can be feasible is if you compare one activity equitably to the other activity.

    The right to carry on campus should ONLY be infringed upon if carrying the firearm is done with the intent to inflict harm on innocents or to commit some other illegal activity. Just as yelling FIRE in a theater should only be infringed upon based on the intent. And you can't prevent someone from committing either of these harmful activities by infringing upon the rights of all law abiding citizens.


    baren, Chicagobill and Eagle_Beak like this.

  12. #146
    Distinguished Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Heart of Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    Jennifer Glass is the Barbara Bush Professor of Liberal Arts in the Department of Sociology and Research Associate in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas, Austin.

    Dr. Lisa L. Moore, UT College of liberal Arts, Interests,Eighteenth-century English and American literature; women's literature; LGBT literature and culture; poetry and poetics; visual studies and garden history; feminist and queer theory; history of sexuality. Biography-I grew up in Calgary, Canada and got my B.A. (Honours) in English Literature from Queen’s University, where I also studied French

    Dr. MIa Carter, UT Austin, Liberal Arts, Mia Carter is an Associate Professor and University Distinguished Teaching Associate Professor in the English Department, as well as 2010 University of Texas System Regents' Outstanding Teacher.

    The plaintiffs filing suit against UT Austin.
    Chicagobill likes this.
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne
    NRA member 18 yrs.

  13. #147
    Senior Member Array robbnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Ramsey
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMac View Post
    Again, with respect to what is in BOLD you are simply not correct.
    I will explain why you are employing a straw man argument in the context of this thread.

    In the context of this thread you are insinuating that yelling FIRE in a theater is a bad thing, harmful to others, inciting chaos or intending harm to others in the theater and therefore is not protected under 1A. You hold this up as an example of why legally carrying a firearm isn't protected under 2A on a campus. By default since you are equating the two, then you must think that carrying a firearm is inherently a bad as your example of yelling FIRE in theater is bad? If so, you are assuredly on the wrong forum.

    What happens in the event of an actual fire and one yells FIRE attempting to warn and protect other movie goers? Is that bad or harmful to others? What civil suit would be filed against this person? I do not believe we would want to infringe upon a person yelling FIRE in an actual emergency.

    You sir, do indeed have a strawman argument, because you are incorrectly equating two very different things. UNLESS you consider legally carrying a firearm to be analogous to inciting riot by yelling FIRE in a theater?


    So you will better understand....
    You are employing a straw man argument because you are equating a harmful and illegal activity with a perfectly legal and harmless activity. You doing this to bolster your position that a right may be infringed upon. The only way your argument can be feasible is if you compare one activity equitably to the other activity.

    The right to carry on campus should ONLY be infringed upon if carrying the firearm is done with the intent to inflict harm on innocents or to commit some other illegal activity. Just as yelling FIRE in a theater should only be infringed upon based on the intent. And you can't prevent someone from committing either of these harmful activities by infringing upon the rights of all law abiding citizens.


    You make good points, but are creating the strawman in assuming that one is shouting "fire" in the theater in order to inflict harm upon others.
    I have made no such assumption, nor have I made an assumption that someone would be carrying a gun in order to inflict harm on others,
    The REASON behind the action is not relevant.

    The point I am making is that one's rights are protected, but that protection ends at the point when exercising a right infringes upon someone else's rights (the great analogy is that your right to throw a punch at me ends a millimeter from my nose).
    A right to private property means you get to determine what does and does not happen on your property. If you do not want a gun on your property, you get to say that there are no guns allowed on your property. Someone who carries onto your property claiming it is their "right" to do so is in violation of your rights as private property owner. They don't get to do that.

    Like the aforementioned punch, your right to carry ends at the property line of the person who doesn't want guns on their property.
    In the theater, your right to say whatever you want ends at the point that it infringes upon another's rights.
    This extends to other places, such as this forum that you frequent, where your 1A right CANNOT be practiced fully.
    You have given up that right in order to be here. Would you declare that illegal and unconstitutional?

  14. #148
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    You make good points, but are creating the strawman in assuming that one is shouting "fire" in the theater in order to inflict harm upon others.
    I have made no such assumption, nor have I made an assumption that someone would be carrying a gun in order to inflict harm on others,
    The REASON behind the action is not relevant.

    The point I am making is that one's rights are protected, but that protection ends at the point when exercising a right infringes upon someone else's rights (the great analogy is that your right to throw a punch at me ends a millimeter from my nose).
    A right to private property means you get to determine what does and does not happen on your property. If you do not want a gun on your property, you get to say that there are no guns allowed on your property. Someone who carries onto your property claiming it is their "right" to do so is in violation of your rights as private property owner. They don't get to do that.

    Like the aforementioned punch, your right to carry ends at the property line of the person who doesn't want guns on their property.
    In the theater, your right to say whatever you want ends at the point that it infringes upon another's rights.
    This extends to other places, such as this forum that you frequent, where your 1A right CANNOT be practiced fully.
    You have given up that right in order to be here. Would you declare that illegal and unconstitutional?
    Your argument would only be valid if one were required to remove their tongue as a prerequisite to theater entry in the same manner as they must remove their firearm.

    It is not the possession of the tongue that is the problem, it is the manner in which it is used to create mayhem.

    It is not possession of firearm that is the issue, it is the psycho that wishes to use it to commit mayhem.

    Your argument attempting to compare them fails.

    Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk
    SteveMac likes this.

  15. #149
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    You don't see the problem on that?? You took what I said too literally and see where it got you? You started assuming stuff I didn't even say. Lol. That's a perfect example. You're taking what the second amendment says and taking it too literally.

    Read this and tell me whatcha think about it.

    It's the Exceptions, Stupid! Why "Shall Not Be Infringed" is a Misnomer - Forward Progressives


    Lol, there you go again. I'm not offended, mad, angry, pissed, insulted, or whatever words you want to use.

    If you want to go on and on believing the good laws we have are and infringement and unconstitutional, go right on ahead bud. I really couldn't care less. This is also another reason why I usually tend to stay out of these arguments because these 2nd amendment extremists can't be discussed with.

    I've offered all kinds of opinions. It's just funny how you're quick to label mine as belittling, dismissive and all them other big words you're so proud to use yet you are doing the same thing.

    Yeah, isn't that the role of the Supreme Court?? To interpret the meaning of the amendments and rule from there??

    Exactly. Well, almost. That's petty much what it says in that link I posted.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I read the article.... very impressive anti-2A opinion article. I have read many progressive, liberal anti-2A commentators on other forums using the quote from Justice Scalia's Heller opinion on 2A not being unlimited, etc. But, as he also stated that his opinion was based on pervious SCOTUS rulings; Blackstone, a English judge; "Commentators" and courts routinely "explained" that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…

    I would submit that I have not undertaken an exhaustive historical analysis of the Second Amendment as Justice Scalia had also stated in his opinion.

    But even the early SCOTUS was not immune from political pressures of their times. As we will be experiencing in 2017 with either a strong conservative or Liberal SCOTUS judges as it was back in those days. I don’t know how the previous courts were balanced when any 2A case was ruled on.

    They can "explain" their opinion merely due to their political position, but that doesn't demonstrate to me that they had any facts to back up their opinion. I believe that a person can forfeit their right through due process for their criminal or mentality ill actions. That is not an infringement of their Right, when it was due their own actions, not the government.

    I still give credit to our Founding Fathers for creating such a great template to form a new Nation to protect the individuals’ rights.

    If our FF actually wanted the 2A to have exceptions, they would never have left the final words in the 2A "...should not be infringed" There is no Asterisks nor vagueness implied. They knew all too well what would happen to the citizens of the new nation, if the government became tyrannical as well. If you can't fight back, then you become subjects rather than freemen.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; August 26th, 2016 at 10:49 AM. Reason: Added paragraphs

  16. #150
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by TeflonDon View Post
    From their perspective, not yours, they aren't "reinterpreting" the meaning of the Constitution, they are in fact "interpreting" it. As you already cited, one of SCOTUS's functions is to "protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution." In order to do that when conflicts arise, they must sometimes "interpret" what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means or originally meant. Whether you or I agree with their "interpretation" or not doesn't matter as far as courts and the law is concerned.

    SCOTUS has came to the conclusion that some restrictions on 2A are Constitutional. That is the way of the land cased closed. As far as court's are concerned, corneileous is right.
    Just curious? How many times can three words "... shall not infringed" be re-interpreted, sorry interpreted numerous times, over the past 200+ years?

Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

should gun be allowed on campus

,

should guns be allowed on school campuses

Click on a term to search for related topics.