Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? - Page 8

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; Absolutely they should....

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 355
Like Tree631Likes

Thread: Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses?

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,174
    Absolutely they should.
    Chicagobill and baren like this.

  2. #107
    Senior Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Cheerleader huh? Funny, folks who concur with you are what? Brilliant, insightful, enlightened? Yet folks who concur with me are...cheerleaders?

    Okay, I'll be your huckleberry Johnny Ringo. Where's YOUR pep squad?

    Looks like I'm a cheerleader
    Rhinoman and ghost tracker like this.

  3. #108
    Senior Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    You may not condone or agree, but if I someone comes on your property with permission, you are stating that you cannot stop them from saying what they want to say about racism, the KKK, or any other subject since you are not allowed to infringe upon their rights as protected by the BOR.

    This is not a discussion tangent of who your friends are, or what your beliefs are, or whether you would do what your friend wants when you visit them; it's a discussion of whether a private property owner can keep someone from exercising a right while they are on said private property. It goes somewhat hand-in-hand with the idea of being restricted on a campus, etc.

    To clarify: do you believe you cannot tell someone not to exercise a right when they are on your private property?
    I believe I stated that if a friend asked me not to carry on his or her property I would respect their request. I will add if I felt like it I may decide to just leave. For further clarification restaurants are open to the public not owned by the public. No one has authority to limit any part of the BOR.
    baren likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #109
    Senior Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    So it's your reference over mine, huh? I see how this works. I can only read and agree with what you recommend...

    Whatever, I'm done with this conversation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    By the way I wasn't arguing. You should read your own post the first one. It goes downhill from there. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed.
    Rhinoman likes this.

  6. #110
    Senior Member Array robbnj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Ramsey
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Strmwatch View Post

    You most certainly CAN go into a theater and yell "fire", there are however repercussions if done so in a malicious manner.

    With regards to the whole "Owns a restaurant" thing...making it a "gun free zone" is technically Un-Constitutional since it's a place that serves the public. Just like he can't put up a sign saying "No LGBT allowed" or "No Blacks Allowed". Ask the bakers in Oregon that were sued out of existence when they refused to bake a cake for a gay couple...the whole "open to the public" and "protected class" excuse was used in the lawsuit.

    I'll be "that" guy and say...I hope your friend gets sued into oblivion if his place gets robbed by a criminal carrying a gun and hurts/kills someone because his "rule" of no guns made it so people couldn't defend themselves.

    By the way...what's the name of the place and where is it located so I know not to spend a single dime there.
    Go into a theater and give it a shot.
    let us know how it works for you after you've been hit with criminal and civil lawsuits, and for lawsuits because you infringed on the rights of other people (especially as a "public place").

    I'll give you the address of the restaurant in exchange for you you sharing your own address.
    You can then have the opportunity to prove that you cannot stop people from exercising their rights on your private property.

    You reference to discrimination cases against protected classes in this discussion suggests that you do not really understand rights, infringement of rights, hierarchy of rights, etc., in the context of this discussion.
    Before taking such authoritative and declarative stances on the subject, you should probably brush up on the facts.
    Chicagobill likes this.

  7. #111
    Senior Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Strmwatch View Post
    And with that comment...I am officially placing you on ignore. You posted a link to a liberal progressive OPINION piece claiming it's "fact" just SCREAMS you are in all actuality anti-gun. At this point I couldn't care less if you say you are a gun owner, I don't believe you. No self respecting gun owner would make the comments you have, nor link to an article such as that.

    Oh and for the record...

    SCOTUS:

    Role

    The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government.

    First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice.

    Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

    Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities.

    In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.


    No where does it state their job is to "reinterpret" the meaning of the Constitution of Bill of Rights. That's a leftists DREAM for that to happen.
    I totally agree with this post and your previous one #94! Thanks you saved me a lot of typing!
    baren likes this.

  8. #112
    Senior Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Oh BOY! Does that mean the introduction of "Tactical" bell-bottoms?!? Maybe even a bullet-proof...Naru Jacket! Excuse me while I dive into the very, VERY back of my closet.
    Hey ghost do you have some platform shoes in there too.

    Sorry I couldn't resist
    Last edited by Chicagobill; August 24th, 2016 at 11:38 PM. Reason: Added last statement

  9. #113
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Strmwatch View Post
    And with that comment...I am officially placing you on ignore. You posted a link to a liberal progressive OPINION piece claiming it's "fact" just SCREAMS you are in all actuality anti-gun. At this point I couldn't care less if you say you are a gun owner, I don't believe you. No self respecting gun owner would make the comments you have, nor link to an article such as that.

    Oh and for the record...

    SCOTUS:

    Role

    The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government.

    First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice.

    Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

    Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities.

    In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.


    No where does it state their job is to "reinterpret" the meaning of the Constitution of Bill of Rights. That's a leftists DREAM for that to happen.
    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.

  10. #114
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,985
    So the admin that started this thread hasn't been online since 3 minutes after starting this thread.

  11. #115
    Senior Member Array Strmwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Go into a theater and give it a shot.
    let us know how it works for you after you've been hit with criminal and civil lawsuits, and for lawsuits because you infringed on the rights of other people (especially as a "public place").

    I'll give you the address of the restaurant in exchange for you you sharing your own address.
    You can then have the opportunity to prove that you cannot stop people from exercising their rights on your private property.

    You reference to discrimination cases against protected classes in this discussion suggests that you do not really understand rights, infringement of rights, hierarchy of rights, etc., in the context of this discussion.
    Before taking such authoritative and declarative stances on the subject, you should probably brush up on the facts.

    Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.

    Please re-read what I said about yelling "fire" in a theater...you know the part you skipped over where I said there were consequences if done in a malicious manner.

    With regards to MY address...my home is NOT a PUBLIC venue, his restaurant IS a PUBLIC venue....once again you lack reading comprehension and don't understand the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property.

    I do understand rights and infringements.

    The irony is dripping in your response.
    Rhinoman, Chicagobill and baren like this.

  12. #116
    Senior Member Array Strmwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,030
    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.
    Please learn the difference between "interpret" and "reinterpret" then come back to me when you're done.

    With that being said...would you be "OK" with a liberal anti-gun majority "interpreting" (read:reinterpreting) the Heller decision and reversing it and restricting the 2nd even further?
    Chicagobill and baren like this.

  13. #117
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Go into a theater and give it a shot.
    let us know how it works for you after you've been hit with criminal and civil lawsuits, and for lawsuits because you infringed on the rights of other people (especially as a "public place").

    I'll give you the address of the restaurant in exchange for you you sharing your own address.
    You can then have the opportunity to prove that you cannot stop people from exercising their rights on your private property.

    You reference to discrimination cases against protected classes in this discussion suggests that you do not really understand rights, infringement of rights, hierarchy of rights, etc., in the context of this discussion.
    Before taking such authoritative and declarative stances on the subject, you should probably brush up on the facts.
    When theaters start demanding that one distongues in order to enter their theater, then you will have a valid argument.

    As it is, one must disarm to enter the theater but not have their tongue removed.

    Thus they can still yell fire in the theater.

    Now, the fact that they can be punished for any mayhem or panic they create is exactly the same as they can be punished if they shoot someone.
    SteveMac, Chicagobill and baren like this.

  14. #118
    Senior Member Array SteveMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    When theaters start demanding that one distongues in order to enter their theater, then you will have a valid argument.

    As it is, one must disarm to enter the theater but not have their tongue removed.

    Thus they can still yell fire in the theater.

    Now, the fact that they can be punished for any mayhem or panic they create is exactly the same as they can be punished if they shoot someone.
    Worth a second viewing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I detest the straw-man "yelling fire in a theater" argument. As in this thread it has absolutely no correlation to the 2A and legally carrying a firearm. You illustrated this perfectly.
    RScottie, Chicagobill and baren like this.

  15. #119
    Senior Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    18,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    So the admin that started this thread hasn't been online since 3 minutes after starting this thread.
    The admin who posted it did so to generate a discussion of a contemporary issue, without taking sides, and clearly succeeded. Mission accomplished.
    Smitty
    AZCDL Life Member
    NRA Patron Member
    NROI Chief Range Officer

  16. #120
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Strmwatch View Post
    Please learn the difference between "interpret" and "reinterpret" then come back to me when you're done.

    With that being said...would you be "OK" with a liberal anti-gun majority "interpreting" (read:reinterpreting) the Heller decision and reversing it and restricting the 2nd even further?
    I feel like you totally sidestepped the crux of my post, and I already know what the difference between the two words are. In the Heller decision the majority stated that:

    Quote Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, 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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152—153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489—490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148—149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271—272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383—384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
    They found that the 2A did not mean and it was never meant, based on historical data, that the 2A could NOT be regulated in any way, shape, or form. You asked what I thought about the Heller decision being reversed by the anti-gun majority to further restrict gun rights, and my response to that is that the Heller decision need not be reversed to accomplish that. The Heller decision clearly supports "some", but not all, restrictions on gun rights. In their "interpretation" of the 2A, some, but not all, restrictions are constitutional. As far as the courts and laws are concerned, some restrictions on 2A are in fact constitutional. The case has been closed on the subject. That's the current way of the land and how things actually work in reality. We're debating a moot point. Our "opinions", "interpretations", "reinterpretations", and whatever else we want to happen or not happen is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    The first amendment clearly, textually, and literally stated thast NO LAW shall be made that ABRIGES aka restrict or diminish freedom of speech. My turn to ask you a question... Do you believe that people should be able to say anything, at anytime, anywhere, and any and every law that restricts a person's speech in any way shape or form is unconstitutional? People should be able to peaceful assemble where ever they like with no restrictions?

    Before you block me and accuse me of being or sounding like an anti-gun Liberal, let me say that, while I agree that some restrictions are constitutional, I also believe that most gun laws should be ruled unconstitutional being that they serve no other perpose than to be a backdoor way for the Antis to get around the 2A by keeping as many people as they possibkely can from exercising a Constitutional Right they believe we should not have.

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 ... 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.