Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

[Chicagobill]

Just curious? How many times can three words "... shall not infringed" be re-interpreted, sorry interpreted numerous times, over the past 200+ years?

AMEN! Not only should I be able to carry campus wide, and have done so. And so I will keep calm and carry on. All limitations or rules or laws enacted on the Bor are unconstitutional!!! " Give me liberty, or give me death!!! "

[SteveMac]

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?

You still fail. Where does exercising the right to carry on campus infringe upon anyone else's right? I challenge you to show the "harm" or infringement upon the non-carrier. The legal carry or "punch" as you want to call it has not "landed on anyone's nose". Clearly, carrying on campus does not infringe upon the non-carrier, UNLESS/UNTIL the carrier commits harm or takes away the non-carrier's life or liberty. You can't assume intent and legislate based on that. To do so, you must arbitrarily take away everyone's right to carry which is exactly what the anti-2A people try to do.

It is a logical fallacy to say, "a gun on campus can be bad" er-go "all guns on campus are bad".

The points on private property fail also in the context of the campus. A campus is not private property if public taxes support it in any way. I have not read in any of the threads above that it was a privately funded school.

With regard to actual private property.
My legal carry onto your private property does not infringe upon you at all, UNLESS I refuse your request to leave or disarm. This is the same principle as the gun buster signs in my state where they do not carry force of law, UNTIL the owner specifically asks me to leave or disarm. And quite frankly, my refusal to leave your private property is going to get me in trouble whether I am carrying a gun or a fluffy bunny.

[Rhinoman]

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?

To me, the analogy is more like having the ability to yell fire in a theater equals having the ability to defend yourself. Just because you have the ability to yell "Fire" doesn't mean you're going to abuse it.

Yelling Fire in a theater when no fire exists is more analogous to firing rounds into the ceiling in a crowded place. In both cases you've gone from benign behaviors to potentially dangerous ones.

[TeflonDon]

Just curious? How many times can three words "... shall not infringed" be re-interpreted, sorry interpreted numerous times, over the past 200+ years?

It was and always has been "interpreted" once to NOT mean that no restriction could be put on 2A according SCOTUS which is based off of history.

Infringement implys wrong doing. That is, something can be done, but not done in a harmful way.

infringe: too do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

The majority agreed that, for one example, the long held ban on felons and firearm was NOT an "infringement" because that ban did not "wrongfully" limit a felon's 2A Rights whereas the de facto gun ban did "wrongfully" restrict aka "infringe" on 2A Rights... Like wise with a copyrighted material... Walmart does not "infringe" on a movie's copyright by selling DVDs, but someone who bootlegs the movie and sells it is "wrongfully" doing so thus he's "infringing" on the copyright...

The SCOTUS unfortunately gets the final say so in whats infringement and what's not infringement aka what laws wrongfully restrict the 2A....

[Havok]

The admin who posted it did so to generate a discussion of a contemporary issue, without taking sides, and clearly succeeded. Mission accomplished.

Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome of? They have 4 posts, 3 of which started threads that pretty much reiterated opinions that have been posted many times. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the discussion, but why continuously start threads knowing that you have no intention of being active on the forum?

[Havok]

It was and always has been "interpreted" once to NOT mean that no restriction could be put on 2A according SCOTUS which is based off of history.

Infringement implys wrong doing. That is, something can be done, but not done in a harmful way.



The majority agreed that, for one example, the long held ban on felons and firearm was NOT an "infringement" because that ban did not "wrongfully" limit a felon's 2A Rights whereas the de facto gun ban did "wrongfully" restriction aka "infringe" on 2A Rights... Like wise with a copyrighted material... A Walmart does not "infringe" on a movie's copyright by selling DVDs, but someone who bootlegs the movie and sells it is "wrongfully" doing so thus he's "infringing" on the copyright...

The SCOTUS unfortunately gets the final say so in whats infringement and what's not infringement aka what laws wrongfully restrict the 2A....

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide what law is an infringement. They decide which infringements they will and will not allow. All gun laws are infringements.

[TeflonDon]

Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome of? They have 4 posts, 3 of which started threads that pretty much reiterated opinions that have been posted many times. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the discussion, but why continuously start threads knowing that you have no intention of being active on the forum?

You all can interpret the text however you like and ignore how things actually work, but that's not going to change a thing or the fact that SCOTUS gets to "interpret" the law and our legal system is bound by their interpretation whether you agree with it or not...

[TeflonDon]

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide what law is an infringement. They decide which infringements they will and will not allow. All gun laws are infringements.

That's your opinion. It's your opinion that any and all gun laws are wrong therefore they're an infringement. SCOTUS and history says that some laws are wrongfully stopping people from exercising their 2A rights, and others are not. Those that are not aren't infringing on 2A. We can argue about this and our "opinions" till we're blue in the face, but that's the way things are.

[gasmitty]

Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome of? They have 4 posts, 3 of which started threads that pretty much reiterated opinions that have been posted many times. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the discussion, but why continuously start threads knowing that you have no intention of being active on the forum?

Consider that Admin's action as that of a moderator in a debate - the moderator makes a statement or poses a question, but takes no side (unless it's a political debate on network TV). Again, the action is intended to stimulate debate, nothing more. That might be unusual on a gun forum, but this isn't your typical gun forum.

[Rock and Glock]

Do you routinely start conversations that you neither have any intention of partaking in, nor care about anything about the outcome of? They have 4 posts, 3 of which started threads that pretty much reiterated opinions that have been posted many times. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the discussion, but why continuously start threads knowing that you have no intention of being active on the forum?

They are active in the Forum. I believe they partake in, and care about the outcome of, the topics. They aren't required to continually post to show interest.

[Kennydale]

The SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench. That's for Congress. Their job is to decide if whatever legislation comes up to Constitutional scrutiny . But I am sure that someday a more liberal court will strip what gun rights we have now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Havok]

Consider that Admin's action as that of a moderator in a debate - the moderator makes a statement or poses a question, but takes no side (unless it's a political debate on network TV). Again, the action is intended to stimulate debate, nothing more. That might be unusual on a gun forum, but this isn't your typical gun forum.

Let's consider a very real possibility that we could be facing in the near future. Hillary is probably going to be our President in a few months. If she has it her way, she will be appointing SCOTUS justices that will try to reverse the Heller decision. Hopefully that never happens. So how could we take a SCOTUS ruling, backed by an official government document written by James Madison saying that firearm ownership is an individual right in the most plain english possible, and all of a sudden another SCOTUS comes in and says it's not an individual right just because they don't like guns. That doesn't suddenly make it not an infringement.

I believe they partake in, and care about the outcome of, the topics. They aren't required to post to show interest.

But they haven't been on the forum since starting this thread nearly 4 days ago.

Gasmitty- I can understand why an admin/forum owner wouldn't give an opinion on what may be considered a controversial subject, but my point is they start threads just for the sake of starting them and then leave and don't return.

My question to the two of you is, would you still be defending this if it were any other random person who joined the forum, started numerous random threads, and never revisited them, and never made any other posts? Obviously they are the admin, and I'm just a regular member so they will do as they please, but why not leave the discussion starting to people that actually have an interest in the subject of this forum?

[Rock and Glock]

My question to the two of you is, would you still be defending this if it were any other random person who joined the forum, started numerous random threads, and never revisited them, and never made any other posts? Obviously they are the admin, and I'm just a regular member so they will do as they please, but why not leave the discussion starting to people that actually have an interest in the subject of this forum?

Actually, that happens a lot around any Forum (One Post Wonders), and is treated as just as any other thread. Why are you so damn obsessed with it?

people that actually have an interest in the subject of this forum?

How do you know this? Have you ever discussed this with any of them? No?

It doesn't matter. It. Does. Not. Matter.

I guess you don't remember the Multiple Choice test you were given before you were allowed to become a member? Not?

It also doesn't matter how many posts a member has before they are allowed to ask a question intended to generate a discussion, or what their motive was, unless it is a trolling set-up.

[GraySkies]

Let's consider a very real possibility that we could be facing in the near future. Hillary is probably going to be our President in a few months. If she has it her way, she will be appointing SCOTUS justices that will try to reverse the Heller decision. Hopefully that never happens. So how could we take a SCOTUS ruling, backed by an official government document written by James Madison saying that firearm ownership is an individual right in the most plain english possible, and all of a sudden another SCOTUS comes in and says it's not an individual right just because they don't like guns. That doesn't suddenly make it not an infringement.

I don't think they will take up a review of the Heller decision without a case in front of them. Gun rights advocates may just have to go into "waiting mode", and not bring Heller-related cases before the court until such time as a more rational court can be seated. Sucks, but that may be the only recourse towards keeping Heller on the books.

[Rock and Glock]

I don't think they will take up a review of the Heller decision without a case in front of them. Gun rights advocates may just have to go into "waiting mode", and not bring Heller-related cases before the court until such time as a more rational court can be seated. Sucks, but that may be the only recourse towards keeping Heller on the books.

Anti-Gun advocates, meanwhile, will be frothing at the mouth.