If a university put it to a popular vote

[MyrnaLoy]

and voted against having guns on campus would you still bully them into allowing it? Would you accept a democratic vote and what the majority wanted or would you and the NRA goons continue to forces weapons on schools?

Will you and the NRA take the roll of dictator or accept a majority voice made of of citizens who live in that community, a community that almost all of you are not a part of?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MyrnaLoy]

2. more

fear and not answering LOL. Tell me now that you made the accusation once again, what was dishonest about this post? Is all you do is stalk people on DU and call them liars? Do you add anything intellectual?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

4. What's dishonest about it?

It's one thing to say you don't want to answer the question...but where's the actual lie?

[MyrnaLoy]

6. this guy is

a one trick pony about to have pizza.

[TheWraith]

283. No one is "forcing guns onto campuses" or anything so absurdly ridiculous.

Some states are contemplating repealing laws which force the campuses to do it the state's way. In that case, each school could still decide on it's own whether or not to allow firearms.

[petronius]

5. University communities don't get to decide what state or federal laws they will or

won't follow, by popular vote or any other method. It's simply not an issue that gets decided at that level, although university students and faculty are as free as anyone else to have an opinion on the topic. (Of course, public and private schools have differing abilities to set rules for their own property, and if a private school wants to ban firearms I figure that's their business.)

Beyond that, not every issue is or should be decided by a majority - and constitutional rights in particular are not subject to that sort of decision making at any level...

[MyrnaLoy]

7. So you

go with NRA dictatorship then? Do you think they will stop at public schools? What about private businesses? There is a push to stop then from letting people in with firearms, at the minimum many here call for a boycott of private businesses who don't allow firearms. Bully or dictator, you decide.

[armueller2001]

10. I haven't heard of anything that the

evil NRA is pushing to remove the option for private businesses to ban people from carrying firearms there.

Can you cite to evidence or did you just make that up?

[MyrnaLoy]

11. oh hell

Have you ever seen anyone here. many NRA members say not to support some business because it doesn't allow weapons? Come on, you know the truth. Be honest here. What is the NRA if it's not it's members?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

175. THe NRA didn't instruct me to not support a business ...

because it had a no gun sign on the door. I did that on my own just as I called the establishment and talked to the owner and manager and informed him that I would be happy to obey his rule and would take my business elsewhere.

I may be an NRA member but I don't blindly obey whatever the NRA wants. In fact, I often disagree with their policies.

[YllwFvr]

208. i am all for not spending at places that dont want me there

and I will tell my friends as well. Im also not an NRA member, and I would never give them a dime of mine. They do some good occasionally, but for the most part I dont like them.

[petronius]

12. I say the same about private businesses as I said about private schools

Or private homes, or any other sort of non-public property: if they want to ban firearms, or any other sort of non-protected characteristics or behaviors, they're free to do so as far as I'm concerned.

And people who choose not to patronize those businesses or attend those schools or visit those homes - for any reason - are likewise free to do so.

So you can talk about dictators or bullies all you want, but I go with the Constitution and long-standing US law and tradition...

[MyrnaLoy]

15. So would you

shop at, dine at, use private places that ban firearms? If so then would you call on your friends to do the same? Are you and those friends members of the NRA?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I would not.

No, No, and Some.

[MyrnaLoy]

20. Was that

no to dining and shopping and no to calling for a boycott with your friends?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Ugh. Really?

"shop at, dine at, use private places that ban firearms? If so then would you call on your friends to do the same? Are you and those friends members of the NRA?"

"shop at, dine at, use private places that ban firearms"
I would not. I would be unwelcome, per the proprieters policies. I would be trespassing if I ignored said policies.


"If so then would you call on your friends to do the same"
No, but if they asked me, I would inform them that their firearms are unwelcome. They can make a determination from there.


"Are you and those friends members of the NRA?"
I am not, some of my friends are members, as membership is required for access to a local range. None of them are politically interested in the NRA. We would probably not get along if any did.

[MyrnaLoy]

39. Okay

you would feel unwelcome because you couldn't take a firearm to say Red Lobster. You go everywhere with you gun then if, as you say, you won't go to places that won't allow you and your gun correct? You won't try to do some secondary boycott of a business based on their policy. That's good and honorable. Let's go back to Red Lobster, how unsafe are they? I was i one last year and I didn't notice any bad guys, I didn't see the cook though so well....

[rl6214]

45. Actually I helped catch and convict two murderers

at a Red Lobster so, you never know.

[MyrnaLoy]

48. We would love to

see those reports, care to share? How did the investigation go?

[rl6214]

58. I was bartending at a Red Lobster from 84-95

I think it was in 91 or 92 we had a couple of guys come in very late in the night and they sat in the bar and had dinner. They presented a Visa card to pay and it wouldn't go through. They said the card belonged to their grandmother who gave it to them to pay for expenses as they travel across country. They had rung up a tab of about $75 which they couldn't pay so we called the cops on them. Cops came, questioned them, searched them and their car and there was blood in the trunk of their car. Car belonged to an elderly lady in Santa Monica. We were in El Paso, TX. They were really homeless guys in Ca and had seen the lady walk out of her apartment to her car. They followed her, hit her over the head and dumped her in the trunk. Once they got out of the city they tossed her body down a ravine and continued traveling east. As luck would have it, they stopped at the restaurant I worked in to eat and got caught because of a credit card. I had to fly out to Santa Monica to testify in both trials. They were both convicted and both got life.

[MyrnaLoy]

61. So you used

your gun how? I don't see your CWP mentioned at all, did you mislead us? Or forget about that part?

[rl6214]

78. You did see the date I posted?

You do know that there was no concealed carry back then, right?

"So you used your gun"

When and where did I state that it had been prevented with a CWP?

Or are you just being dishonest again in your posting?

[MyrnaLoy]

80. so then you're

entire story was misleading at the least and in actuality pretty dishonest. It had nothing to do with our discussion. Haven't I seen you make certain accusations about me doing what you just did? Your story HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONCEALED WEAPONS. Tsk tsk, pretty dishonest!

[rl6214]

91. This is your statement

"Let's go back to Red Lobster, how unsafe are they? I was i one last year and I didn't notice any bad guys, I didn't see the cook though so well...."

My story has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. Your statement did not say when have you or anyone you know used your concealed weapon to stop an XYZ

You are the one that is being dishonest when someone asnwered your question.

Try to spin this one, you can't.

[MyrnaLoy]

98. LOL

easy. what is the OP of this thread? What has 99% of the discussion been about? Well, that was easy. Way to go Crimebuster, Let me do to you what you do to me OK? Get me the link to your crimebusting, the story didn't happen without a source LOL.

[rl6214]

105. You did see the date I posted, right skippy?

Yeah, I made that whole story up

I'll look around to see what I can find for you.

[MyrnaLoy]

107. I gave real names

in my story, we're gonna need yours to back this up, maybe even a copy of you d/l to prove it. Didn't happen with the source man, fair is fair.

[rl6214]

109. Difference is mine is first person

not just a statement you are claiming

AMD

I don't care if you believe it or not.

[MyrnaLoy]

112. Wait!

Now you don't like it now that the shoe is on the other foot? I told you my friends name and where he lived when it happened? You know the year and now you won't do what expect from others? Seriously? You're gonna do this? You expect something you won't provide others? Bet you wish you hadn't told that tale now don't you? I won't stalk you over it, you don't have to find the sources, I won;t run around DU and call you names, I know how that feels, you did it to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. False equivalency.

You offered two markedly different accounts of your friend with a .22.

An inconsistency that was widely noted.

It was not simply based on a refusal to name names/cite source. You told two tales, of which, only one could be true.

[MyrnaLoy]

118. My story was true

Wrong person self delete.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Lies.

Please take that back. I have not stalked you. That was my first post on the subject.

Perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?

[MyrnaLoy]

123. sorry that was

not meant for you, I messed up. It was for someone else here.

[rl6214]

116. WTF are you talking about?

": I told you my friends name and where he lived when it happened?"

"Bet you wish you hadn't told that tale now don't you?"

No actually I don't. That happened 20 years ago. Can you find a specific news story that happened in your home town 20 years ago? I doubt it.

I have asked you to cite not specific instances but general information.

"I won't stalk you over it, you don't have to find the sources, I won;t run around DU and call you names, I know how that feels, you did it to me."

If you don;t want people to click on your posts, don't post them. I couldn't care less whether you post it or anyone else so don't flatter yourself by thinking I have followed you around.

[MyrnaLoy]

120. my story was true

happened over 20 years ago so what? So you want to do this? I'e let you off the hook, you should take the free pass, I don't feel the need to call you names and stalk you all over DU like you and cleanhippie did to me. Take the pass man. It's an offer that's one time only. You told your story and can't back it up, walk away.

[rl6214]

124. Funny how a number of people here have questioned

the validity of your posts here but no one has questioned mine. Why is that?

I'm glad you know my posts, I guess I should feel flattered. Hmmmm, maybe it is YOU who is stalking me!

[MyrnaLoy]

128. Do you want to do this

OK cite the source for your heroics at Red Lobster on the date in question. What were the names of the perpetrators? What was the victims name? What was the model of the car with the bloody trunk? What was the exact date so we can cooberate your story? What are the names of everyone involved, including yours? What newspaper reported the story? Was it a Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, or American Express? Was it stolen? 20 years ago? Did you run it in a machine or one of those non-electronic card machines? If you used a non-dedicated verification system how did you know the card was stolen? 2o years ago you said? What system of verification was used then? What was your position at Red Lobster when this took place? Please provide newspaper accounts, murder is a big story so that should e a good starting point. We will all wait.

I gave you an easy way out, you should have taken it.

[rl6214]

129. Hahahahaha

You funny!
:rofl:

[MyrnaLoy]

132. okay

guess we now know the real you. You should really try not to tell so many fantasies. This thread will be around for a while and people are going to really see you can't back up your fairy tales. What a shame. Reality isn't your strong suit is it? Red Lobster caper HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

[AtheistCrusader]

47. I don't leave my gun in my car.

Remember when the Police Chief's gun came up missing? (I don't know if you live in Seattle or not..)

I could put a safe in my car and weld that to the frame, but then I risk people seeing me secure and retrieve my weapon. I keep it concealed, at all times. Removing it from my person would violate that, and leave the weapon at risk of theft. I will not provide a firearm to some shitbag.

So I will frequent establishments that do not require I abandon my weapon elsewhere. I would respect a business that prohibited weapons, and provided secure storage at the door, like the courthouse.

[MyrnaLoy]

49. your car

have a trunk?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Nope.

Scion xB.

Trunk is likely not more secure from theft anyway. Many cars allow some trunk access through the back seat. Some have a trunk release from the interior of the car.

[MyrnaLoy]

59. How many

times have you had to shoot someone at say Red Lobster? I mean, I've carried mine once an it was a pain in the ass. It must be super dangerous where you live. Is it more dangerous that a university?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I carry mine most of the time I am outside my home.

You're right, it is a pain in the ass. And no, I have never had to use it.

I prefer to keep it that way. That's the idea behind concealed carry. Universities can be dangerous, as Virginia Tech and others have shown.

[MyrnaLoy]

so do

you believe that a CWP holder would have stopped the VT shooter? Just like all the other CWP holders haven't been able to do? Someone will show up shortly and say other people aren't their responsibility, they always do. They also always want to use the VT shooting. Which is it? Will you defend others or only yourself?

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Multiple teachers risked their lives to stop the VT shooter.

None of them had a rather simple tool capable of doing so.

Do you really need a litany of incidents wherein armed first responders that were not police officers halted active shooters, and saved lives? I can list some without even doing any research.

[MyrnaLoy]

74. actually

now that you mention it go ahead and list for us ALL the incidences where a CWP protected a large group of people. Not just on universities but anywhere. I'm sure it's a massive list so I'll wait.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. All of them?

I will provide some. I am not a catalog of them all.

[MyrnaLoy]

84. You find as

many credible stories about CWP holders stopping mass shootings then, we will love to read those. Now remember, stopping a robbery is not stopping a mass shooting, well unless the robber has already started shooting everyone in the place. I'll give you the first one for free. You can have the church lady.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I'll give you one off the top of my head.

Mark Allen Wilson, Tyler Texas courthouse shooting.

David Arroyo Jr. is alive today because Wilson intervened.

[MyrnaLoy]

95. just like you do me

sources, you said you had a few didn't you? With the one I gave you, you now have two. I have to warn you, I'm going to come back at your list with statistical evidence that actually shows how CWPs have very little affect on crime. Just a warning. You make your list, when your done I'll show you where CWPs have done nothing about crime. When I show you how ineffective they really are then maybe you'll see how it wouldn't matter if there were 100 CWPs at VT, they wouldn't have stopped it. Now go make your list, keep this in mind, the number of violent crimes vs the number of CWP holders in any state.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. I don't like anecdotes. My list will be nothing more than a collection of anecdotes.

By all means, let's skip to your statistics.

And calling bullshit that no armed teachers at VT could have made a difference. You are making an unfounded absolute statement. You can't possibly back that up. Armed teachers HAVE responded to active shooters, as have ARMED STUDENTS, with positive effect. Also anecdotes, but so is the entire VT scenario. Since your crystal ball isn't any better than mine, you don't get to claim it wouldn't matter if there had been 100 armed CPL holders at VT.

[MyrnaLoy]

110. so you choose not to gather the info?

we won't be seeing that list? Unfounded? How many shooters stopped the Arizona shooter? One, two, six? No, an old man and lady with out guns did. See, you have VT and the other side has Arizona, it's our football. That's why it was important for you to list the others who stopped mass shootings. Since you won't be doing that I guess we'll just focus on what we know. We know that not one CWP holder stopped the shooting in Arizona. That is a fact.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. You just informed me that you are not interested in any such list.

Nor, I am sure, are you interested in Defensive Gun Use numbers from the DOJ.

So tell me again why I should bother compiling any such list for you.


The fact that the first responders to the Arizona shooting were unarmed is not in dispute. Nor does it prove anything for either side in this discussion. (except of course, an anecdote showing that the opposition claim of indiscriminate crossfires isn't based in reality)

Again, no one has ever claimed a CPL and a gun are a magic talisman against harm. It is simply a tool that can enable self defense.

[MyrnaLoy]

oh I'm interested

I'll wait for it. We are going to compare actual violent crimes in states with a high number of CWP holders to see what effect, if any, they have on mass shootings. In a nutshell how many mass shootings have CWP holders actually stopped. If the reason you guys want to continue to use is VT then lets see how effective they actually are against the same crimes. Lets go all the way back to Luby's in Texas, we should get plenty of examples of CWPs stopping mass shootings since then right? I mean the crime in question is mass shooting right? That will be our metric, mass shootings.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. So much wrong with your request.

First off, I'm going to include police. Since the common thread to stopping a mass shooting is armed opposition (wherein most active shooters commit suicide), and CPL holders are simply one vector to place an armed responder at the scene.

Also, it's somewhat hard to argue a shooting that was stopped with a single victim couldn't have been a 'mass shooting' if it had not been halted, so your criteria is absurd at the least.

[MyrnaLoy]

122. nope

we are talking about cwp not police armed opposition. This discussion has only been about CWP, police force was not mentioned until you needed it, without it your claim is non-existant except for two incidences, (you had to know I already knew the answer right? What legal mind ever asks without knowing the answer anyway?)

[AtheistCrusader]

125. CPL is an augmentation to armed first responders.

If you accept that security and police forces (which number some 0.0052% of the population, last time I did the math) providing armed opposition to an active shooter has a positive effect, on what grounds could you possibly argue that individual civilians who are armed cannot provide the same effect?

There are many more than just two incidences. You have not explained the logical failure in attempting to define the scope of 'mass shooting' wherein all incidences of CPL holders quickly opposing an active shooter would be ruled out.

In fact, Mark Allen Wilson would have been ruled out as well, Arroyo Sr. only killed one person. Nevermind that at least one life certainly was saved.

[MyrnaLoy]

133. I have a early

flight tomorrow so are you going to compile a list of all of the CWPs that have stopped mass shootings since luby's or not? I mean, if you're just going to do some Texas Two-step then what's the point? This has been since post one about guns on campuses, you guys introduced VT which opened the door to mass shootings. Law enforcement was never discussed, this is about CWP, universities, and mass shootings. We can call it quits and move on if you don't want to provide the information.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. Again, you move goal posts.

Concealed carry on campus has implications for individuals. Single instance defensive gun use. Mass shootings are actually rare, a person on campus is more likely to legally use a firearm in self defense in less broad circumstances. Why would anyone rule them out?

Worse, why are you pretending advocates somehow ruled them out, or tried to, by citing VT as an example? So such limitation was implied.

[MyrnaLoy]

oh I'm interested

I'll wait for it. We are going to compare actual violent crimes in states with a high number of CWP holders to see what effect, if any, they have on mass shootings. In a nutshell how many mass shootings have CWP holders actually stopped. If the reason you guys want to continue to use is VT then lets see how effective they actually are against the same crimes. Lets go all the way back to Luby's in Texas, we should get plenty of examples of CWPs stopping mass shootings since then right? I mean the crime in question is mass shooting right? That will be our metric, mass shootings.

[MyrnaLoy]

117. oh I'm interested

I'll wait for it. We are going to compare actual violent crimes in states with a high number of CWP holders to see what effect, if any, they have on mass shootings. In a nutshell how many mass shootings have CWP holders actually stopped. If the reason you guys want to continue to use is VT then lets see how effective they actually are against the same crimes. Lets go all the way back to Luby's in Texas, we should get plenty of examples of CWPs stopping mass shootings since then right? I mean the crime in question is mass shooting right? That will be our metric, mass shootings.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. Your criteria is mass shootings.

Not mine.

Mine is defensive gun uses, of which the US Department of Justice has listed 60,000+, yearly. It may be in defense of the individual, or the group. The self, or others.

You are the only one limiting this to mass shootings. Of course, if one did so, one would rule out intended mass shootings that were stopped with one, or less casualty, by an armed first responder.

[MyrnaLoy]

130. it was always mass shootings

why did you change it? Wasn't it you guys who wanted to use VT? Why change it now?

[AtheistCrusader]

170. VT is a single example.

There are other examples, such as felonies like rape being prevented on campus by a civilian with a firearm.

All of these issues have implications for people over 21, legally entitled to, and capable of obtaining a Concealed Pistol License, and a pistol.

Looking back through the thread, I see no reason to think this issue should be limited to 'mass shootings', and again, you do not allow for incidents that didn't BECOME mass shootings, because an individual with a firearm halted it.

[RSillsbee]

169. Jeanne Assam New Life Church

CHP holder and a lesbian

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html


Trolly square

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

[rl6214]

96. Changing the playing field?

This was his statement:
"Do you really need a litany of incidents wherein armed first responders that were not police officers halted active shooters, and saved lives?"

This is yours:
"now that you mention it go ahead and list for us ALL the incidences where a CWP protected a large group of people"

Don't think he said anything about a large group, you are changing what he said.

[MyrnaLoy]

99. got me

that link to your crimebusting Red Lobster story yet? Didn't happen without a link you know. We'll also need names, yours included.

[rl6214]

111. do you remember details or an event that happened

20 or so years ago? I remember the names of my co workers that went to Santa Monica with me to testify but not the murderers.

Are you going to post YOUR name on a open forum, huh myrna?

Didn't think so.

[MyrnaLoy]

114. Look

forget it, I won't stalk you all over DU and call you names, I know how that feels, I know you did that to me but I'm a better person than you. No need to find the sources for your tale, we won't mention it again.

[PavePusher]

131. Two web sites with thousands of links to actual news reports of self-defense with firearms.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

Yes, the list is massive. Go to town...

[MyrnaLoy]

135. Did anyone say

self defense? No, we said mass shootings since Luby's. That is what this thread is about. We can however start a new one and discuss self-defense shootings as compared to violent crimes committed with firearms if you like. Wanna do that?

[PavePusher]

144. Stopping an intended or potential mass murder is not Self-defense?

Wow, you're moving those goal posts again.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. Funny, I don't see any such limitation on scope of discussion in the OP.

If this thread became something other than what you intended, perhaps you should have specified that.

[Atypical Liberal]

163. ABSOLUTELY.

so do you believe that a CWP holder would have stopped the VT shooter?

Absolutely. Cho moved from classroom to classroom shooting people. As he got to beyond the first few classrooms, students and professors in classroom 204 tried in vain to barricade the door, but Cho forced his way in by shooting through the door and continued shooting. Likewise in room 211 an instructor and student were killed trying to barricade the door.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

These people had plenty of time to prepare for the assault. If one of the people in those rooms was carrying a firearm, things very well could have turned out differently.

Cho's victims were sitting ducks with no means to resist, and they died trying to resist with only their bodies.

Just like all the other CWP holders haven't been able to do?

Are you are forgetting the Appalachian Law School shooting where students went to their vehicles, obtained their firearms, and came back and subdued the shooter?

[Starboard Tack]

224. They could have stopped him with a tazer too or a hand grenade

Choose your weapon

[Atypical Liberal]

241. Are you serious?

They could have stopped him with a tazer too or a hand grenade

Choose your weapon

I can't tell if you are joking or what.

The people that were trying to barricade themselves in their classrooms were shot through the door. Neither a tazer nor a hand grenade would have been of any use.

Aside from the fact that no one seriously considers using hand grenades for self-defense.

[RSillsbee]

247. A grenade might have been of use

especially in an enclosed hall way. So, yeah let's do away w/ guns and all carry grenades

[Starboard Tack]

253. How about an RPG with an X-ray scope to see through doors?

Or maybe a small nuclear device. Just a teeny one.

[YllwFvr]

210. appalachian law school

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

[Euromutt]

221. How is a CCW permit holder supposed to stop a mass shooting in a "Gun Free" zone?

Which is it? Will you defend others or only yourself?

False dichotomy, as the two are not mutually exclusive. In a mass shooting, it is theoretically possible for a prospective victim to defend himself, stopping the shooter in the process and thereby preventing the shooter from harming more people.

[Starboard Tack]

254. You could get a really big gun safe and put wheels on it or maybe

tracks and climb inside and drive it.
Why can't we make classrooms as safe as courthouses and hospitals?

[Atypical Liberal]

162. If we could see the bad guys we wouldn't need guns.

Let's go back to Red Lobster, how unsafe are they? I was i one last year and I didn't notice any bad guys, I didn't see the cook though so well....

If bad guys walked around with neon signs floating over their heads with a giant arrow that said "bad guy here" we would all just avoid them and wouldn't need guns at all.

Unfortunately bad guys usually work hard to blend in so they are not so easy to spot.

[Starboard Tack]

255. I like the neon sign idea

But it is kinda unfair if the good guys don't have signs too. Bit sneaky carrying concealed. And the bad guys can't buy guns, right. So, where do they get them from? Oh, yeah, I forgot. They either steal or buy them from the "good guys", who have now become bad guys for selling them, or worse, letting them be stolen

[petronius]

23. If the service/product was good, yes.

Whether or not a facility bans firearms plays no role in my patronage decisions for private entities.

As far as public spaces go (including universities) however, I'd argue that restrictions and limitations on anything must be based on sound, empirical foundations...

[MyrnaLoy]

35. Good, lets look at that

using your own words. must be based on sound, empirical foundations Sound, empirical data correct? What is the crime rate at America's largest university? What is it compared to say Chicago? Two different communities, two different needs.

[petronius]

50. A sound, empirical foundation in support of the restriction or limitation, yes

Are you trying to argue that the relative safety of university campuses is due to restrictions on firearms? If so, you'll need to provide some evidence of that causation, and explain why campuses that do allow concealed carry are not apparently less safe. Otherwise, there's no foundation.

Different communities may have different needs, but I'm not aware of any specific need in the university community to ban concealed carry by permitted and qualified individuals...

[MyrnaLoy]

54. I'm telling you

that the universities are not some evil crime ridden community and this push by the NRA and it's zealots is at best akin to a dictatorship.

[petronius]

67. I know what universities are like - that's not the point. What matters is a valid reason for a ban,

and in the absence of such a reason a ban (on anything) should not exist...

[MyrnaLoy]

70. majority

rule, the will of the majority, is that not a valid reason?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Majority rule had to be overruled to allow interracial marriage in Virginia.

What's your point?

[MyrnaLoy]

79. different amendment

we're talking about the second here. Since you won't answer the simple question about whether we are dealing with a living or dead document it will be hard to continue. It's really an easy question, is it living or dead? I'll help you, most of the conservative judges think it's a dead document. Have you ever wondered why?

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Living.

The Supreme Court has altered the scope and applicability of the 2nd many times in my life. If you asked a question, I would answer it. You didn't ask. You asked about majority rule. Looking upstream in this thread, you didn't ask about whether the 2nd is living or dead.

Stop trying to move goalposts.

[MyrnaLoy]

89. only asked it

like 5 times. Good, so it's living and we could therefore change it to stop the NRA from allowing guns in places where a local community better understands its needs. Good!! Let's change it together!

[AtheistCrusader]

93. It can be changed via two mechanisms.

Judicial review, or cosntitutional amendment.

There is no need, in my view, to change it at this time. If the NRA tries to trample private property rights, I will act against their interests.

[MyrnaLoy]

100. OKay

If the NRA tries to trample private property rights, I will act against their interests. How so? I'm going to hold you to this.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. I stand ready to oppose any political effort to force allowance of firearms in vehicles on private p

roperty right now. (not an issue in this state at the moment)

I have already discussed this issue at lenght with a defense attorney that specializes in self defense and concealed carry on the subject of private property. I will do everything I can to educate people on the difference between private and public property, and do what I can to defeat any such measure. I'll go to Olympia and <rabble rabble>, etc.

If you're in seattle and such a bill is on the table at the state level, PM me, I'll give you a ride to Olympia.

[MyrnaLoy]

136. actually

we are in Olympia quite a bit, it's for healthcare though. Much more important to us right now.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Less of an issue for me.

The nation is trending in the correct direction on that.

I would like to see superior state-level single payer, but there's a state attempting it right now, and I will withhold judgment until I see how that shakes out.

[petronius]

77. No, it's not. On many topics - especially constitutional rights - the will of the majority

is not and should not be the determining factor. That's an absolutely core principle in our system, in fact...

(And as far as public universities go, majority votes carry little weight on lots of topics - the 'campus community' is frequently overruled by the campus administration, the system administration, or the state government, let alone the courts and the constitution.)

[MyrnaLoy]

87. wonder why we

even vote then if the will of the majority is not the deciding factor? We could just let say the NRA pick our politicians then. Who needs the will of the people!!

[petronius]

94. Do you truly have such a limited understanding of our political and legal systems?

Or was that just a very bad attempt at snark?

:shrug:

[MyrnaLoy]

137. did you want to

insult or provide any facts? how many mass shootings have been stopped by CWP holders since Luby's? You want to continue to use VT as your Waterloo so let's do it. I can tell you how many didn't stop a shooting in Arizona.

[petronius]

181. It appears that you've lost track of the topic; what does any of that have to do with majority rule?

:shrug:

But again, if you honestly don't understand why the will of the majority doesn't always take precedence, I'd say you have some serious reading to do (and you should ask for a refund on any PoliSci courses you may have taken back in college)...

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Do you not understand what a republic is?

[PavePusher]

138. Does the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" ring any bells to you? Sheesh.... n/t

[YllwFvr]

212. my school

has tons of armed people. think anyone would attack it? I rather doubt it.

[Starboard Tack]

225. Can't imagine where your school is, but you must feel very secure

especially in a place where people are counted by weight? Interesting. What do they teach there?

[YllwFvr]

237. they teach

police academy. the teachers are all cops

[Starboard Tack]

252. Ooh, arent we tricky!?

Now you want college students to be armed. You teach this?

[YllwFvr]

259. It should be up to the individual universities

And if it is allowed by state law. I think they should be allowed to carry if they choose to. If I was working in an area with a college where it was legal I would expect to respond to MWAG calls.

[Starboard Tack]

265. Fair enough

Let the University decide by popular vote, students and faculty.

[AtheistCrusader]

262. College Students: AKA "Adults"

Which they are.

No one under 21 can obtain a permit.

[Starboard Tack]

264. Doesn't seem very fair.

Why not 18? Is there something inherently wrong with people between 18 and 21?
They can fight for their country, vote, marry, be executed. Sounds somewhat elitist to me. Or is it because they have opted to stay in school and continue their education? If they want to be around guns they can join the military.
Do you think they carry to class at West Point or any military academy?

[AtheistCrusader]

266. I don't think Concealed Carry advocates set that age bracket.

In fact, it's a point of contention, for exactly the reasons you just specified.

[Starboard Tack]

268. So do all Concealed Carry advocates claim that all college students

18 and above should be able to carry concealed weapons to class and elsewhere on campus?

[AtheistCrusader]

269. "All"? Highly unlikely we are such a homogenous group.

I think 'many' would be more accurate. I do not have specific numbers, only personal interaction with other supporters to draw upon.

[Starboard Tack]

270. Why do you want to conceal your weapon?

I'm not sure I understand that part, unless it's for the same reason that British cops conceal their truncheons in a special pocket, because to carry them openly is deemed to be anti-social.

[AtheistCrusader]

271. Initiative.

Iniative would be my primary reason. If some clown walks into the local stop N rob with a gun, I don't want to be the first guy shot in the back because I had a gun on my hip, and the robber considered me a threat. I also don't want to go the way a lot of police officers have been killed in the past, where they end up shot with their own weapon, because the initiation of hostilities was some creep grabbing their gun on their hip. Training has helped with that, but it's still an issue, and I don't want to carry myself, and behave, like a police officer.

I want to assess the situation before deploying a firearm. The mere recognition that I have a firearm could escalate some situations, and I want to de-escalate any confrontation if possible.

It also makes some people uncomfortable, and I don't like making people uncomfortable.

So while my state allows open carry, I don't. I conceal.

[Starboard Tack]

272. OK, fair enough, but you say you don't want to carry openly because

your gun might be grabbed by a villain, like what sometimes happens to cops. I agree with you. Of course, the solution to that problem would be to disarm the regular beat cops, like in the UK, which I think would be an excellent idea. Probably why you don't want to be mistaken for a cop. They aren't very popular in US society, because of their us and them mentality. They don't see themselves as civilians, which I believe is one of the root causes of gun violence in the US. Inner city kids see cops as one big well armed gang. And so the snowball grows.

The other thing you mentioned was you don't like to make people uncomfortable, which is laudable, except that their comfort level is controlled by your deception. So, if you were one of those people who feel uncomfortable around guns, would you want to know or not? Would you be a good ostrich and stick your head in the sand? Or would you feel outraged at the deception?

[AtheistCrusader]

278. Police in the US are, and probably should remain Armed.

They combat that issue with retention devices, such as special holsters, and sometimes lanyards. Also, with training. Where and how a police officer stands when interviewing someone is part of the process now. Just getting too close to an officer is a bad idea when being stopped or interviewed. That's why the incidence of officers being killed with their own service weapons is rare, and 20 years ago it was one of the largest causes of death (if I recall the FBI statistics correctly).

As for concealment, I would not be upset by someone else carrying in public in a lawful manner. I don't care what other people do, within the law, in public spaces.

As a firearms owner, I do ask people permission before I enter their homes when armed. I have been asked on a couple occasions not to bring a gun into someone's house, I respected their wishes, and will continue to do so.

[GreenStormCloud]

282. You are advocating appeasement to the gangs.

Of course, the solution to that problem would be to disarm the regular beat cops, like in the UK, which I think would be an excellent idea. Probably why you don't want to be mistaken for a cop. They aren't very popular in US society, because of their us and them mentality. They don't see themselves as civilians, which I believe is one of the root causes of gun violence in the US. Inner city kids see cops as one big well armed gang.

So if we will disarm and all sing Kumbaya then the gangs will pur down their weapons and cease to be violent?:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

159. The was also a push by the antis to boycott Starbucks because they allowed guns.

For awhile I made it a point to go to Starbucks to support them. I told the manager why I was spending money there and that I appreciated Starbuck's stand. The boycott failed.

Here in Texas there is a sign that is common in businesses. It advises people that possession of an unlicensed gun on the property is a felony. Most people think that means all guns. CHL holders are licensed so the sign doesn't apply to us. The business is trying to have it both ways. They want to pacify the antis while allowing the CHL holders to carry. When I see a sign like that, I ignore it and walk on in.

A few rare business have a gunbusters sign. That is a picture of a pistol with a circle/slash through it. It has no legal standing. I usually ignore those, except the one at my doctor's office. I disarm there because I don't want to have to take my guns out to take my clothes off if I have to.

Very, very few places have a 30.06 sign. Those have the force of law. I obey them.

I don't bother trying to organize boycotts of businesses. There are so few that ban guns that it isn't worth the effort.

Yes, I am a member of the NRA.

[Atypical Liberal]

161. "private" businesses.

What about private businesses? There is a push to stop then from letting people in with firearms, at the minimum many here call for a boycott of private businesses who don't allow firearms. Bully or dictator, you decide.

In my opinion, if you are a business, private or otherwise, that is open to the general public, then you should not be allowed to deprive customers of their civil rights just because the property is privately owned.

I would be OK with an exception for places that have security and metal detectors to screen people as they enter the premises, because then the business is actively taking responsibility for the safety of the people on their property. But otherwise, they should be able to carry firearms on their person when entering such places of business.

They key here is being open to the general public.

[RSillsbee]

168. Schools that take state funds

Need to follow state laws. If the state allows OC on campus then the school should. OC is allowed on CSU w/ no ill effect. I carried a gun to class every day while I was in college again w/ no ill effect and no shoot outs w/ the instructors either


Tell me when Brady called for a boycott of Starbucks to stop them allowing OC in their stores was that bullying as well?

[WatsonT]

218. You have an odd definition of dictatorship

[armueller2001]

8. Interesting to note that our system of government here

in the United States is actually a democratic republic, not a democracy. A republic is a system in which the state is limited in power by a constitution and that is why the "popular vote" does not reign supreme. Having a document such as the bill of rights helps prevent tyranny by majority. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is morally right or does not violate the rights of some citizens.

How about after 9/11 if it was put to a popular vote to forcibly eject all people of Muslim faith from the country? Why don't we put abortion to a popular vote? Speaking of college campuses, how about in one of the more particular racist areas of the country if they put a referendum up for popular vote to ban African Americans from attending that school?

The desires and opinions of 51% of the population do not violate the rights of the other 49%.

[MyrnaLoy]

9. who better knows

the needs of it's community, it's residents or the NRA at the other end of the nation? This knee jerk is the NRA's not the citizens of said community.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Then explain support from non-NRA members.

[MyrnaLoy]

26. How different

is the mindset from the NRA and the non-NRA gun supporter?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. On this issue? Very little.

But as has been pointed out, the NRA enthusiastically supports republicans, and gives republicans a platform tangentially related to firearms. They give some money to pro-firearms Democrats, but nowhere near parity. So it is distasteful to constantly rub the NRA in people's faces, especially given people who support a progressive stance on the *entire* bill of rights.

On firearms policy, specifically, there should not be, and really isn't much difference. If there were, the NRA wouldn't be a very good single-issue advocacy group, since they wouldn't be getting that single issue very correct..

[MyrnaLoy]

41. but you see

whether you support the NRA or not you continually support their policy. Especially the issue of carrying guns on campus.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. It is not their policy.

It is my policy. The NRA can go take a flying leap for all I care. I do not carry their water. This is MY position, upon my own powers of reason.

[MyrnaLoy]

62. you don't think

you're not carrying their water by NOT supporting local businesses that don't allow firearms?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Double negatives aside

No, I am not carrying their water. If they benefit, so be it. My purpose is practical, as in, I will not commit the crime of trespassing.

[MyrnaLoy]

69. and

hurt local businesses correct? How far will you drive for a steak, to a place that allows your firearm? Don't do the grammar thing, it makes you look vindictive and silly.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. When you ask a yes/no question, it's really valuable for the outcome to be credible.

Hence, important you not cloud the issue with grammar structure.


I am not the one who would be hurting local businesses. Local businesses would be. They would be excluding me. Then again, none ever have. So this is a fruitless exercise.

[MyrnaLoy]

83. So you choose

to travel to another location because they won't let your gun in? You're so shallow that for a brief moment you can't leave your gun home? Is it a fear thing?

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I don't plan my day around whether I might want to go somewhere

my firearm isn't welcome.

And no, I'm not shallow. Thanks for that. Nor do I live in fear. Keep building strawmen, I'll happily kick them over.

[armueller2001]

92. Barring concealed carry holders from entering

is essentially saying "You're not welcome here, we don't trust you".

How would that go over if a shop owner verbally said that to a black person, jewish person, etc?

Would they be SHALLOW if they preferred to spend their money elsewhere?

[MyrnaLoy]

139. actually you missed a very important

one. WE DON'T KNOW YOU! OUR CUSTOMERS DON'T KNOW YOU! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE! No one else seems to need a gun why you?

[Atypical Liberal]

165. But they do know them. Or they should.

actually you missed a very important one. WE DON'T KNOW YOU! OUR CUSTOMERS DON'T KNOW YOU! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE! No one else seems to need a gun why you?

You know what, though? They should now them.

In fact, I bet there are very, very few businesses that actively discourage CCW carrying of firearms. For the same reason there is no insurance penalty for carrying or owning firearms.

CCW permit holders are hardly every involved in crime.

In fact, as has been shown here many times, CCW permit holders are many, many times less likely to be involved in crimes than average citizens.

Why on earth would a business want to keep such people away?

Honestly, you've got people who are known to be safer than the general public, who have disposable income to afford firearms and permits, and who are known to play by the rules to a T. They are ideal customers.

[PavePusher]

178. And you can use that bull-shit excuse to justify.... anything.

'Cause it's bull-shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

203. Do you really think that people with bad intentions

will obey a sign?


You are free to ban people with guns from private property. By all means, do so, and know that it will come at a cost of lost business.

[YllwFvr]

215. not just ccw carriers

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/04/police-officer-asked-leave-portland-coffee-shop/

[YllwFvr]

216. you know they have a clean criminal record

at least nothing serious

[armueller2001]

85. I have yet to be turned away from a restaurant or

pretty much any establishment because of a legally enforceable "no guns" sign. Probably because the Texas concealed carry law has been around so long that businesses got the hint that excluding part of their customer base isn't good for profits and the signs came down.

There is a sign at the bowling alley we go to, however it does not cite the wording of Texas law 30.06 and is therefore not legally binding. It just has a picture of a Glock and a red circle/slash through it like the Ghostbuster sign. Since I do not carry a Glock, I am not offended by this sign or the owner's preferences toward particular brands of firearms. Carry on.

[one-eyed fat man]

156. Change the commodity

There are communities which ban smoking in restaurants and communities which do not. There are communities which ban alcohol and communities that do not.

When a "wet-dry" vote came up in one town in this county the local ministers' association campaigned hard against it. Hoist on the petard of campaign finance laws it turned out the most of the "dry money" came from saloons and liquor stores across the county line. Those who know the old "Baptists and bootleggers" joke will appreciate the life reflecting art.

One city is complaining about the loss of restaurant tax revenue because now folks can have a drink in the formerly dry town.

The same thing has happened with smoking. The city which initially banned smoking is now demanding the ban go county wide because people who smoke go a few miles up the road where the can drink, smoke and spend their money where they want.

There are businesses I will not support simply because I don't like their policies, politics, or proprietor. If a business has a "no guns" I respect their right to post it. I simply take my trade and money elsewhere. They got what they wanted.

As it happens, I don't smoke, but I don't agree with the "Nicotine Nazis" who force bans in bars and restaurants. And I find one of their arguments as to why individual businesses cannot be permitted to formulate their own policies completely reprehensible. When they say the city must make all the bars and eateries in town must ban smoking because if the left it up to individual places the places that banned smoking would lose money to places that allowed it.

I see no difference in your position. Pascal was right.

[YllwFvr]

214. I drove an hour yesterday to get to an IHOP

So ill go far enough for good steak that allows me to carry. We had a pretty big firearms controversy here a few years ago. Try googling "Dickson City Dozen" or "Dickson City Open Carry". It was a big to do. For a while businesses put up no firearms signs but eventually they came down. Its strongly pro firearm around here anymore.

[armueller2001]

31. I supported concealed carry on campus

when I was a university student and before I was an NRA member.

I also support others' civil rights, even though I am not a part of their groups. I am not gay, but I support gay marriage. Is my position on that topic not valid?

[MyrnaLoy]

42. you can have any position you want but

you won't listen to the voices on college campuses who may very well be the majority. I'll paraphrase you, Is their position on that topic not valid?

[armueller2001]

53. Not as valid as the civil rights of the minority

who choose to exercise their second amendment right to self-defense.

Once again, the desires and wishes of the majority do not trample the civil rights of the minority.

[MyrnaLoy]

56. back to this again?

Is it a living or dead document? When we amend one section does it relate to another? Come on, this is easy! Amending the second has to do with the rights enumerated in the other amendments? Really? Where is that written?

[armueller2001]

60. I'd suggest you go about amending the second amendment

then, instead of advocating for laws against concealed carry on campus.

Good luck with the amendment process though. Since there are literally dozens of universities that allow carry on campus with zero problems, you may have a hard time showing evidence or just cause for your added restrictions.

[MyrnaLoy]

64. Did I miss

your answer? Is it a dead or living document? BTW, Idaho doesn't allow it, Washington doesn't. You have what dozens? How many states are there? Wanna do a side by side on this?

[armueller2001]

81. There are 50 states.

However, I did not say that dozens of STATES allow concealed carry on campus, only that dozens of universities do.

All public universities in Utah (10)
All colleges in the Colorado Community College System (14)
Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia
Colorado State University

That's a total of 26 so far, and that was a quick 5 minute google search. Pretty sure there are a few more.

[MyrnaLoy]

140. ohhhh

when you change it then I like it even better! Dozens of universities in the nation compared to how many that don't? I like those numbers much better! So in your quick search, how many universities don't feel the need to arm their students? You have, what 26 that do? Tell us how many don't.

[YllwFvr]

217. this is the beginning

if you go back ten years we could have this same convo about states and ccw. Its was gaining popularity but many states did not have it. Then OC was becoming common. Now university carry is spreading. A side by side is useless until its expansion has halted.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. Wrong, Washington does.

The state allows for it by law. Or rather, state law doesn't prohibit it.

Granted, most public universities and colleges prohibit it by administrative rule. Which means any students carrying on campuses where it is prohibited, could be facing trespassing.

People who are NOT students can be asked to leave, but if they comply, will face no further action.

[LAGC]

13. A popular vote isn't going to keep school shooters away.

They will still come and shoot a bunch of unarmed victims.

Wouldn't you rather SOMEONE -- ANYONE -- have a chance to fight back, and in defending themselves, potentially prevent more deaths?

[MyrnaLoy]

17. is that like

a daily occurrence? All across the nation? How many CWPs have stopped crimes such as school shootings? How many stopped the shooting in Arizona?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I don't think any CWP's have stopped a crime ever.

Being a piece of paper with no arms or legs.


CPL or CWP license or permit holders HAVE saved lives. None stopped the shooting in Arizona. An armed, CPL holder was the first victim. She didn't see it coming. No opportunity to react.

Ask every teacher, desperate to bar a door and protect his or her students at Virginia Tech, if they wish they had a firearm on them, that day. By all means. Go door to door. Keep notes. Be respectful though, it's likely a sore subject.

[MyrnaLoy]

28. You do know

we could really dissect this "an armed, CPL holder was the first victim. She didn't see it coming." and discuss just how ineffective CWP really is. In actuality it wouldn't be the only negative for CWPs that day, what with the CWP holder who assaulted the wrong guy.

[rl6214]

34. "what with the CWP holder who assaulted the wrong guy."

Who was this? The only CWH that I am aware of was the guy in the store that came out but never even unholstered his gun. Is that the guy you are refering to?

[MyrnaLoy]

46. yes

he would be the guy who tried to wrestle the old man who actually got the gun from the shooter. You know, the old man who didn't have a gun and was able to disarm the gunman. Your guy, lt how many shots be fired before he acted? When he did act the crowd had to tell him to stop assaulting the wrong guy. You do also know the Congresswoman has a CWP right? Didn't really help her much though did it?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Again with the magic shield.

The senator did not see it coming. She wasn't challenged 'high noon' style. Announcement of hostilities was a bullet through her head. You seem to be intentionally unreasonable on this point.

The responder also came from some distance, from inside the Safeway. He 'acted' right away, he just had distance to cover. Also, the gentleman holding the weapon dropped it voluntarily upon being challenged.

[MyrnaLoy]

66. I'm going to use your words again

She wasn't challenged 'high noon' style. How many criminals do the "high noon" style? How many actually have their weapon out when they are going to rob you? Would you have seen it coming?

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Nice try.

He put the gun to the side of her head and pulled the trigger. No warning. Not the same thing.

A firearm is a valid response to being threatened with a firearm, a bat, a knife, etc. Any credible threat of serious bodily harm, including attack by fists and feet, can justify deadly force in response.
The US department of Justice lists in excess of 60,000 lawful defensive gun uses per year. (I don't buy the 2.5 million by phone survey DGU claim)
60,000 civilians is a big chunk of people who used a firearm (lethal force) in self defense within the confines of the law, in a confrontation, without committing any crime themselves.

[rl6214]

75. OK, so let's look at what you said

"he would be the guy who tried to wrestle the old man who actually got the gun from the shooter"

This is what I found:
After the gunman ran out of ammunition in the first magazine, he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.<23> A bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair in the process injuring his elbow and representing the 20th injury.<24> The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired colonel Bill Badger

Zamudio actually pushed the holder of the gun (Badger) into a wall

Not qhite assault. If you want to define assault that way, then Patricia Maisch and Bill Badger are guilty of assault, and that is ridiculous.

" the old man who didn't have a gun and was able to disarm the gunman. Your guy"

MY GUY? And just how is he "MY GUY". I don't know him, I have never posted or commented on him, I have never endorsed him. I think you need to back up a little there.

"how many shots be fired before he acted?"

He was in the store shopping, he was not at the rally.

"the crowd had to tell him to stop assaulting the wrong guy"

Again with the assault bullshit. Was Loughner being assaulted?

"You do also know the Congresswoman has a CWP right? Didn't really help her much though did it?"

Was she carrying?

[MyrnaLoy]

141. my favorite part

The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired colonel Bill Badger Old guy didn't need a gun. BTW Red Lobster hero, get those sources yet?

[rl6214]

147. Never claimed to be a hero

and I'm looking.

[MyrnaLoy]

182. So

Lobster salad boy anything? There are a ton of people who can't wait to read about your heroics. The newspaper age excuse doesn't work, I can bring up 150 year old articles from Montana right now. Nexus? You guys are so cool solving a crime like that!

[rl6214]

196. You gonna keep being juvenile?

"Lobster salad boy anything?"

Reading IS fundamental is lost on you, isn't it. Please show me ANYWHERE anything about heroics. Please, I'll wait.

You post bullshit every single day and are called on it every single day by numerous posters here and when you are called on it and asked to provice a cite you just slink away and won't even address the request. You can play juvenile games all day long, doesn't change that fact at all.

Can I find a reference to one crime committed 20 years ago? No, but I won't stop trying, just for you. You keep playing your juvenile games.

[MyrnaLoy]

199. Okay

Let me know. Quick question, does the rl in your screen name stand for red lobster by chance? Btw, I'm allowing you the same treatment you gave me. I'm doing nothing that you didn't to me. Let me rephrase, I provided facts, you provided nothing. That makes your post bullshit now doesn't it?

[rl6214]

200. Yes it does

Last Red lobster I worked for was RL6214

If you say it is bullshit, that's fine.

BTW, how was your flight this morning?

[MyrnaLoy]

205. Delayed

Thanks for asking, stuck in Tampa. Raining so bad you can't see the runway.

[rl6214]

207. That sucks

My son flew to LA though Phoenix last Tuesday and was stuck in Phoenix for 5 hours and I've been there many times myself. At least you've got a computer to keep yourself entertained.

Stay safe.

[MyrnaLoy]

231. Thank!

it's turning out to be a long day, one of those coast to coast days. On a completely different topic if you still have pull at RL tell them to bring that shrimp Louie salad. That was the best salad at any restaurant ever, lol. Those little Shrimp and boiled egg and bacon was perfect. When did they take if off the menu?

[rl6214]

260. I retired 3 years ago after 24 years with the company

That shrimp Louie has been gone for, wow, maybe 15 years I'm guessing? I had a lot of requests for that once it was taken off the menu.

[MyrnaLoy]

274. It was very good

They used to try and make one up for me after it was gone but it just wasn't the same. I think it was so good because the shrimp were the perfect size for a salad. It was just a perfect mix of salad stuff.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I find it amusing that the only people who sell concealed carry as a magic shield of invulnerability

are its opponents. Says something about 'honesty' doesn't it?


The responder that interdicted the fellow holding the gun did exactly what he was supposed to, properly, legally, and well. He did not 'assault' him. He did far less than what a police officer would have done to him.

Funny that you would accuse him of a crime. Again, speaks to 'honesty'.

[MyrnaLoy]

51. actually

I have one so your point is? So your saying the crowd DIDN'T have to tell him he grabbed the wrong guy?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. You support restricting freedom of movement based upon exercising that license.

That makes you an opponent. Whether you have a license or not.

The crowd actually didn't have to tell him. In his own words, the guy immediately dropped the weapon when ordered. That removes 'imminent threat' from the equation, so the responder never drew his weapon.

You accused him of assault. Any charges to back that up? Assault is a serious crime.

[MyrnaLoy]

73. You're loosing

your cool and your argument. I'm not going to dig out old articles, and I know what he said. I saw his hero front page article. BYW did he get a medal or citation for his bravery? His story was very powerful. You can find all the articles you want where the crowed yelled "you got the wrong guy!" that's actually a direct quote. No I won't look it up and no I'm not lying. It happened, you know it did.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. I'm not upset at all.

I assure you, your crystal ball is faulty.

I watched him talk about it live on television, in his own words, with his own body language and inflection.
He did not commit a crime. Period. You have accused him of such. You should take it back.

[MyrnaLoy]

142. nope

he said himself he may have shot the wrong guy and the crowd told him he grabbed the wrong guy. Why don't you read some of the other stories other than his LOL

[AtheistCrusader]

173. Both of your statements are true.

He was concerned that he almost shot the wrong guy. He had legally justifiable reason to be making that decision.
The crowd also assured him he had the wrong guy.


None of this runs counter to the things I pointed out:

1. The man holding the gun dropped it when ordered.
2. He did not commit assault against the man that was holding it.

[LAGC]

29. It doesn't happen very often.

But when it does happen... isn't a small chance of minimizing the carnage better than no chance at all?

I'm mainly thinking about Virginia Tech.

I mean, how can someone get away with killing THIRTY-TWO FUCKING PEOPLE, going room to room, shooting victim after defenseless victim over the course of several hours?

Do you not honestly think if someone -- ANYONE -- could have fired back at him, even if they didn't hit him, might at least made him have second thoughts and flee?

[MyrnaLoy]

33. OKAY

let's go with that. you said I'm mainly thinking about Virginia Tech. I'm thinking Arizona. How many CWP holders were there that day? Well the one who got shot was one, the guy who tackled the wrong guy was one, I've heard there were two more. So this is what we know, there were at least two in close proximity to the shooter, correct? How many shots did they get off?

[LAGC]

37. In any mass-shooting, the first few victims are unpreventable.

But after the initial shock and realization of what's going on, the longer it goes on, the higher chance of someone being able to actually intervene.

Fortunately his high-capacity magazine apparently jammed and we didn't see many more victims. But if he was able to keep reloading and reloading, the chances of someone intervening would have gone up exponentially.

[armueller2001]

40. Sounds like three or four in close proximity

to the shooter would have been better then.

[MyrnaLoy]

104. how many were shot

in Arizona with at least two CWPs in very close proximity? Some reports say there were at least 3 people with CWPS, what did they stop?

[LAGC]

134. What's your source for that?

I only heard of one other CWP holder, besides Gabby herself, and he wasn't even in the same room.

Had Loughner's magazine not jammed and someone wrestled it away from him, the chance of a CWP holder being able to draw on him before he could kill many more people would have increased greatly.

[MyrnaLoy]

145. how far back

out of the picture are you guys gonna move that dickhead who did nothing but get in the way?

[LAGC]

150. If he was there and actually witnessed Loughner while he was still shooting people...

Then we could more easily judge what he may have done or not done.

[MyrnaLoy]

183. Well

We know what he did don't we? Grabbed an old who actually stopped the shooter. Funny thing, the old man didn't Need a gun to do it, isn't that a hoot?

[LAGC]

238. They were damn lucky Loughner had a weapon malfunction.

You can't always count on that being the case.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Would you accept a similar 'democratic' student body vote to exclude black people from campus?

Or gay people?
Or to outlaw certain political speech?
How voting to strip search students at the gate, whether they consent or not?

You see where I'm going with this right?

[MyrnaLoy]

22. sure do

and as far as I can tell they weren't part of the OP. Did you now want to change the question?

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Not at all. I think your position is quite clear.

[rl6214]

21. IF it were put to a popular vote, then overturned

by district courts or the supreme court as unconstitutional, then what?

Really the only way to enxure this does not happen would be to amend the 2A.

[MyrnaLoy]

24. yes

and maybe that is the answer. Smart reply! Did the framers foresee the size and scope of the nation when writing the 2nd? Is it part of a living or dead document?

[rl6214]

27. But if we are going to amend the 2A, then we get to the

logical question of, are we also going to amend the 1A because the framers never could have imagined the technological advances and how they affect the 1A.

[MyrnaLoy]

30. Really?

You do know it's been amended a number of times right? I'll ask again, is it a dead or living document?

[rl6214]

43. I believe the possibility of judicial activism is too great

for it to be a living document.

[MyrnaLoy]

146. So it's a dead document

in your words correct? Why the fuck do we have all those crappy amendments to a dead document? Really, you didn't see that coming? By the way Red Lobster Hero, got those sources?

[rl6214]

148. Still working on it

and I can see why you have such a warped viewpoint of things if you think calling the cops makes someone a hero.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Amended when? Re-ratified when?

Are you confusing court decisions with amendment?

Then 2nd has been incorporated, and scope further defined many, many times as well as the first.

[Atypical Liberal]

166. "living or dead document"?

Did the framers foresee the size and scope of the nation when writing the 2nd?

The framers foresaw the need for a system of checks and balances in our government, including its armed forces.

Is it part of a living or dead document?

What does this even mean? Laws are laws. They are neither living nor dead. They get interpreted by judges, and we have a system where rulings can be appealed up to our Supreme Court. Laws can be created, amended, and struck down.

[PavePusher]

126. If a public University or college voted to dis-allow any other Civil Right....

you'd have an absolute screaming hissy-fit, and rightly so.

Yet when it comes to this one, it's O.K. to promote open bigotry, insinuations, false accusations, outright lies, disinformation and propaganda.

I wonder why that is?

[MyrnaLoy]

143. bigotry

against gunowners? LOL. Yeah, you guys have been treated so horrible LOL, get to the back of the bus, hahahhaa. Bigotry, that's an actual insult to those who have stared down real bigotry. You should be ashamed.

[PavePusher]

149. I have stared down several types of bigotry.

Racial, sexual, economic, cultural and, yes, bearing arms.

Take your shame, fold it in half repeatedly until it is all cornors, and insert it, at a high rate of speed, into your ass.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

151. Civil rights subject to majority opinion...

How very progressive of you. :eyes:
I wonder how far equal rights movements would have made it if we just "put it to a popular vote"
Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally recognized civil right.

[Buzz Clik]

153. Civil rights are NOT universal. Freedom of the press is not limitless, nor is freedom of speech.

"I wonder how far equal rights movements would have made it if we just 'put it to a popular vote'"

That's a joke, right?

Please tell me that you are intending this as a joke.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

154. No one's saying they are limitless...

Any civil right can be curtailed through the use of struct scrutiny and/or due process.
I'm not going to claim civil rights are universal - they're not.

But I do advocate consistency. Public university should abide by public laws.
There's nothing inherently different about campus land than public land.

[Buzz Clik]

155. You have a lot to learn about the law.

Universities have the right to make their own rules for such things.

And equal rights was put to a vote. Many times, and that voting continues.

[PavePusher]

176. Private Universities, yes.

Public... not so much.

And when have Civil Rights been put to a popular vote? (I assume you meant something like a referendum/public vote?)

[Buzz Clik]

152. Great thread! K&R!!

[krispos42]

157. Selective democracy?

What other activities that are legal in the state should be put up to majority vote?

How would you resolve the issue that gun owners, while usually a passionate minority, are nonetheless a minority and that putting such things up to a vote reeks of mean-spirited bullying by the majority?

How would you resolve the issue that non-gun-owners tend to be ignorant of both the law regarding guns and of guns in general? How can good democracy occur when the majority is both ignorant and unwilling to be educated on the issue?


And what if the campus votes for concealed-carry... would YOU take the roll of dictator or accept a majority voice made of citizens?

[GreenStormCloud]

158. A public college should not deny adult students the right to self-defense.

Adults who have gone through the CHL process required by Texas are no threat to others. Criminals are not detered by "no guns" signs. But the do respect an intended victim's gun. Public colleges are owned by the people of the state and must obey the laws of that state.

[Buzz Clik]

164. If that notion scares you, then go to another institution.

[PavePusher]

177. Naw, I'd rather public institutions not discriminate against my Civil Rights. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

185. They are not your "Civil Rights." You have no assumed right to carry firearms wherever you please.

Do you think these so-called rights were granted by God?

[PavePusher]

228. Nope, recognised by the Constitution.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Civil Right.

[Buzz Clik]

232. sigh.

It's like arguing with my grandfather.

Can you carry a gun on an airplane? Into a courtroom?

No.

Those rights can be restricted.

[TPaine7]

235. Yes, rights can be restricted. But that argument doesn't help your case.

Your argument sounds to me like a common one among rights opponents.

All rights can be restricted, therefore {my proposed restriction} is acceptable.

Let's look at an example of this logic in action:

You can't curse out a judge in her court or scream obscenities in class, so the right to free speech can be restricted. THEREFORE we can forbid unpopular political speech on campus.

I disagree strongly with this type of argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The argument could be made as a simple analogy, but if fails that way as well. Courts and airplanes are special places in ways that campuses clearly are not.

Carrying a concealed weapon on campus is not like carrying a weapon on a plane. Campuses do not pack people in confined places from which they cannot emerge for hours. Campuses are not pressurized. They do not require specialized skills to keep aloft, so that the loss of two lives can mean the near certain loss of a hundred or more lives. Campuses are not weapons-free in reality, as the result of extensive invasive searches and scans, as are courts and airplanes.

Comparing rights restrictions on planes and in courts to rights restrictions on campuses is like comparing apples and lounge chairs. And the logic you use to do it--"rights can be restricted therefore my preferred restrictions are permissible"--cannot survive a moment's reflection.

[Buzz Clik]

239. Newsflash: unpopular political speech can be banned from campus. As are guns.

I have no idea what you think you're arguing, but carrying a gun can be restricted -- whether you like it or not.

It's a fact, and your discussion is acting as if it's hypothetical.

[TPaine7]

248. Yes, and students can be raped and murdered on campus. That too is a fact.

Since you want to discuss power, it is also possible for those who fear the RKBA to be crushed into political oblivion.

In fact, it's happening.

[Buzz Clik]

251. Happy crushing.

And enjoy all those campus rapes and murders, too.

[TPaine7]

257. I am enjoying the crushing of anti-rights political forces. Immensely.

As for the rapes and murders, I guess they are only enjoyed by the perpetrators. (And perhaps a sick subset of their political allies, you know, the folks who use their votes and influence to guarantee that the thugs' intended victims are unarmed.)

You're not projecting about enjoying rape and murder, are you? There is help available for people with issues like that.

[Buzz Clik]

258. How's that turning out for you, Crusher?

Try announcing that you're bringing a concealed weapon onto just about any campus in the country and see how it turns out. Be sure to bring a videographer. "Don't tase me, bro!"

[AtheistCrusader]

263. It wouldn't really be 'concealed' then would it?

In fact, that might even be meanacing or brandishing.

Nice try to bait someone into a crime though. Real nice of you.

[Buzz Clik]

267. OMG!

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

279. On a more serious note, a lawyer did exactly that at the Seattle Center, was asked to leave

when he got to the door, intentionally. Gave him standing to sue. And he won.

So now I don't have to leave my gun at home when I pass through the Seattle Center or other public spaces where state law prohibits a local municipality from enacting firearm laws that are more strict than state law.

[one-eyed fat man]

256. Depends on the airplane.

Until the FAA changed the regulations under the Clinton Administration, it was the certificate holder who determined if the flight crew was armed or not. Up until the US Post Office went from being a Cabinet Level Agency and got spun off into the Postal Service any pilot flying a mail contract was required to be armed. The picture is of a Post Office issue Smith and Wesson "Terrier" with its Post Office issue holster.



My former father-in-law was a Railway Mail Service clerk. He was issued a Colt's Banker's Special as was every clerk in the mail car. They were distinctively marked on the backstrap, and acceptance marks from the inspectors at the Springfield Arsenal.



When rail service was discontinued in 1977, the by then, Postal Service collected and stored all those firearms at the Eastern Area Supply Center at Somerville, New Jersey. In 1993, this accumulation of thousands was sent to a foundry at Newark, New Jersey, for supervised destruction.

During the time I was stationed in Alaska, every plane was required to carry a survival kit, which included a firearm. Any time I fly anywhere, I am going in my airplane; I can carry what I want.

As far as courtrooms go, in Kentucky there is a special class of conceal carry permit for Commonwealth Attorneys, County Attorneys, Assistant Commonwealth/County Attorneys, and current or retired judges.

http://kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/ccdwinstruct.pdf

[GreenStormCloud]

188. Instead I hav written to my TX state senator and state rep.

Both of them support concealed carry on campus, and both of them support employee parking lot protection.

[TPaine7]

198. You have it bass ackwards

If the notion of being around armed Americans, YOU can go to a private school that agrees with you. And if you're that terrified on campus, you might not like the "risks" inherent in being around sane, law abiding people in the mall, on the street, at the movies, and other places.

There are countries that share your fears and prejudices...

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

209. I'm staying in this country, thank you.

I vote my my rights, and so do you. Vote your conscience and accept the results with maturity.

Keep in mind that I'm not the one so terrified that I have to carry a weapon. I'm not pushing for an unnecessary display of lethal force -- that would be you.

[TPaine7]

236. I don't push for "displays" of lethal force, necessary or not.

Ok, I guess maybe I do when I pay to see an action movie.

To me, lethal force is not theatrical--not outside the theatre, anyway. Potentially lethal force is not for use as a "display" it is a last resort to prevent or stop things like murder, serious assault, rape, and kidnapping. It is never to be used unnecessarily. Never. Your accusation is false, on multiple levels.

I certainly don't have to carry a weapon, any more than you have to carry one. In fact, as far as you know, I never carry a weapon.

I will vote my rights. And I have been striving to act with maturity. Not that the mods' enforcement is a perfect indicator, but it may be relevant to note that my posts on this thread have been "mature" enough to survive scrutiny. (Not that I know for sure that the missing post is yours--I never saw it--but if it is... )

[Buzz Clik]

240. Good luck. You'll have a lot of resistance.

[Atypical Liberal]

160. We don't put civil rights up for votes.

If a university put it to a popular vote and voted against having guns on campus would you still bully them into allowing it?

I would no more accept this than I would if a university voted to disallow black or gay people to attend.

We don't put civil rights, especially the civil rights of minorities, up for votes.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual, Constitutionally-enumerated right.

[slackmaster]

167. Auto-Unrec for obvious flame-bait

:nuke:

[onehandle]

179. Of course they would. 'Kids don't know what they are doing.'

Which is one of the current theories of Republicans that are trying to take away College student's vote.

Connection?

[Euromutt]

223. Isn't "Kids don't know what they are doing" the argument *against* allowing CCW on campus? (n/t)

[rrneck]

180. This thread is a study

in how to form a circular firing squad.

Amateurish flamebait.

[MyrnaLoy]

184. Yeah

Let's look at all the wisdom you offered......oops sorry, you offered nothing to the discussion. What a failure on your part.

[rrneck]

186. If a university voted

to ban firearms and they got banned, what self defense solution do you have against assault by someone using a knife, club, fists or feet not involving a firearm?

[Buzz Clik]

187. A net? Firehose? Tennis racket? Damn, man! Is lethal force the only answer to a threat?

[GreenStormCloud]

190. Deadly forces (gun) is a very good answer to other deadly force.

Kind of hard to carry a firehose around.

[rrneck]

192. Well,

Lethal force may well be the only answer to a lethal threat or even a threat of serious injury or sexual assault. That's the gist of every law regarding self defense codified by the popular consent of voting citizens including students at colleges and universities.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

229. Please state the legal or moral imperative that requires me to meet a criminal...

on anything approaching equal ground.

If threatened with illegal harm or mortality, I have no duty to respond in any manner but the one I think is required to ensure my well-being. Overwhelming force is the most certain route to ensure this. Peroid, end, dot.

[Buzz Clik]

233. Where did that come from? Who suggested anything so insane?

[PavePusher]

242. You certainly appeared to be in post #187. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

243. No.

[PavePusher]

244. Can you be a little clearer then, please? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

246. To be honest, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion ...

that I feel that people are morally or legally obligated to meet an act of violence with lethal force. I didn't say it or imply it. The post that started the subthread suggested that someone being attacked by a perp with a club or fists or whatever could not be assisted with anything but a firearm. I found that a ridiculous notion. The end.

[rrneck]

249. Your implication

was that I advocated unnecessary lethal force.

Got that solution yet?

[Buzz Clik]

250. Yes.

[MyrnaLoy]

191. Good question

How many college students were clubbed to death in the last say ohhh 100 years?

[rrneck]

193. How many will be

and will you be there to rescue them?

[rrneck]

201. If it was a good question why don't you answer it? nt

[WatsonT]

219. How many people have been shot to death in officially "gun-free" zones?

[lawodevolution]

189. As long as anyone who has ever set foot on or who ever feels they may someday

Be on campus for any reason or someone who has paid sales tax and therefore has helped fund the public university system can vote, so that includes all people in Texas who are able to vote in elections and they have already made their desires obvious by putting people in office who are going to pass CCW on campus.

[ZombieHorde]

194. Be careful with your logic.

Using your logic, the civil rights movement would have been filled with bullies and dictators.

[rrneck]

195. +1000

Bullies and dictators thrive in the compost of partisan politics and arrogant ideology.

[gejohnston]

197. OK your turn.

If a university or college up it up to a popular vote and voted for having guns on campus, would you bully them into disallowing it? Would you accept a democratic vote and what the majority wanted or would you and the Brady and HCI goons continue to force schools to forbid them?

Will you and the Brady Campaign take the roll of dictator or accept a majority voice made of citizens who live in that community, a community that you may not be part of?

[MyrnaLoy]

202. Ya know

I don't really see the Brady people forcing universities to keep guns off campus, you have any facts to support that? How many lobbyists do they have compared to the NRA? Bring us some facts next time.

[VoteProgressive]

206. If a university voted to stop blacks from attending would that be OK? nt

[Callisto32]

213. Why should anyone care what the majority thinks...

if they are not objectively correct?

[WatsonT]

220. Public universities may not deny constitutional rights to their students

private universities, I suppose they could.

[Buzz Clik]

227. They surely can and do.

[Kurska]

222. Constitutional rights are not subject to majority votes.

Same reason you just can't "Hold a vote" to strip black people of their right to vote or "Hold a vote" in a community to disband freedom of speech or the right to privacy. I know I can't wait for my local community to "hold a vote" and decide that people don't actually have freedom of religion and they better start attending the local church or they will send the cops after you.

[Starboard Tack]

226. No, but they are subject to change by amendment. That's how black people

became 100% human, before women. And slavery is still legal under the 13th Amendment.
An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

[Kurska]

275. Well thats the point isn't it?

If what you want is in contrast to the constitution, you have to amend the constitution. And a majority vote of a university would not do that.

[TPaine7]

276. The Hell it is!

"That's how black people became 100% human..."

"And slavery is still legal under the 13th Amendment."


Are you in the right forum? Are you sure?

As a black man, I avoid areas of the web where evil and ignorant BS like this is spouted. I didn't think DU was one of them.

[Starboard Tack]

277. I think you have completely misunderstood my post

I was making a point that the Bill of Rights is subject to change by amendments and that some amendments have superceded other amendments in the name of justice and progress. Here, we are discussing the 2nd Amendment and it's theoretical amendability.

www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/55/latham.pdf

[TPaine7]

284. The things you said are false and heinous in and of themselves,

no matter what you meant. Context cannot fix all flaws.

It is simply not true that blacks (or women) "became 100% human." Their full humanity was recognized, that is all. And slavery is not legal.

You need to either express yourself more clearly or restrict yourself to less explosive subjects.

[Starboard Tack]

286. I don't know what your problem is but you are way off mark

I was making a point using IRONY. You might want to look that up.
You need to think more clearly or restrict yourself from "less explosive subjects".

[beevul]

230. Hahaha.

"If a university put it to a popular vote and voted against having guns on campus would you still bully them into allowing it? Would you accept a democratic vote and what the majority wanted or would you and the NRA goons continue to forces weapons on schools?"


Yeah, LOL, because the tyrany of the majority isn't bullying, right?

We don't live in a Democracy, sorry.

In fact, the framers made it clear, the LAST thing they wanted was mob rule.

So they placed some things outside the influence of a simple majority, you may have heard of them.

"Will you and the NRA take the roll of dictator or accept a majority voice made of of citizens who live in that community, a community that almost all of you are not a part of?"

Neither.


Get a supermajority, or get lost.

[Euromutt]

273. Myrna seems to have a tendency to employ false dichotomies

Your choice is between a straw man of her making, or her own opinion; no other options.

[Euromutt]

234. "Democracy" isn't just the will of the majority

It's "the will of the majority, with respect for the rights/freedoms of the minority." It is illegitimate for anyone to restrict the freedoms of another unless the exercising of those freedoms materially affects the first party. And note that "it makes me uncomfortable" doesn't count as materially affecting you.

Moreover, in your typical institution of tertiary education, the student population is going to turn over almost entirely every four years, so whatever the students vote on isn't going to apply to themselves in a few years, but it will apply to someone else. In your idea of "democracy" would the vote have to be repeated every year or two?

[GreenStormCloud]

245. Good point about student turnover !! N/T

[aikoaiko]

280. in the pursuit of individual civil liberties, minority positions should be protected from the mob.

Its not an NRA things, its a civil liberties thing.

[Francis Marion]

281. Since when is the Bill of Rights

in need of plebiscite for validity?

Jim Crow was an example of rights suppression by 'democratic vote,' so the fact that some number of people agree to deny rights does not necessarily carry any moral force, simply because 'democratic' in form.

Suppose a university voted, 'democratically,' to deny students protection against unreasonable search and siezure. Would you be willing to 'bully them' into conforming with the Fourth Amendment? I would.

Because the Bill of Rights is the baseline, the norm, the starting point: not a reluctantly-granted set of popular favors subject to indulgence here, but not there.

Your statement, laden with elitism, prejudice, bare of fact or source, that 'almost all (gun owners)' exist outside of universities suggests that your outlook may be a bit narrower than it should be for a person seeking education.

Perhaps public universities are free to return gun owners' tax money if their respect for the Bill of Rights troubles so. But as long as my money goes there, as long as my Bill of Rights applies there, I'll retain an interest.

[David West]

285. So long as they are funded by tax dollars...

Yes, I would favor forcing them to allow people to exercise one of their most basic human rights.

[HockeyMom]

287. Private versus Public University

Private Universities, on private property, can ban smoking, drinking, have dress codes, even ban GUNS, if they wish to do. Just has private businesses, and private individuals, can ban them on their on property. Tyranny of the minority? I don't think so. PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Having gone to and worked at both public and private universities in NYC, if you put it to a vote the VAST majority of students would say NO to guns on campus. Why do you think NYC has such restrictive gun laws? It is because it is what the people WANT. I remember reading a poll on this. Something like 80% of NYC residents did NOT favor repealing the gun control laws. Differnent strokes, for different folks. Whether it is a "right" or n

Mob rule? Maybe, but think of that old adage. What if they gave a party and nobody WENT? What if you have a campus of several hundred students, and teachers, and only say 5 wanted guns on campus?

Do not ASSUME that the majority in certain areas want what YOU want.

Myrna, I agree with you. These people would BULLY people into this. Been there, done that. "I am going to buy you a gun (husband) for your protection". "I don't want a gun (me) and it's a waste of money." "But, it is so EASY to own and carry a gun in FLORIDA (husband)". "That is nice (me)". "I don't care (me)". "Buy me a new food processor instead (me)". BTW, we've been married 36 years. You would think he would KNOW by now how I feel.

They would and DO bully people.havw

[RSillsbee]

288. How's that picking up an assault rifle from Wal Mart working out for you?NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

289. Looks like *someone* here has never heard of Autherine Juanita Lucy.

A majority didn't want her on "their" campus, either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autherine_Lucy


Also:

Do you find restrictions on abortion acceptable if they are put into effect by majority vote?