So its fine with you for a restaurant owner to ban black people from his business?So property owners shouldn't have rights because other people do? Perfect logic right there.
So its fine with you for a restaurant owner to ban black people from his business?So property owners shouldn't have rights because other people do? Perfect logic right there.
So its fine with you for a restaurant owner to ban black people from his business?
Yes, property owners have the right to make rules of their property. Exactly like this forum, I can't be racist, I can't bash LEO, and I can't bash you. Some rights trump others. But that is only cyber property, not real property too? NOPE. So we're not really giving anything up if private property does "reasonable restrictions".
Of course, I do not support the 2nd amendment just because it isn't relative in what I was saying. You caught me. Or maybe I realize that rights are absolute until they interfere with other rights.
Consistent? Show me where it waivers. Just because I draw the line here and you mistake where it is at doesn't mean I am not consistent. I have changed my views before in my life, but not in the course of this thread.
That is the best part, I only need one out of millions to prove me right. I never said that all collages were public, like you were trying to imply, I only said some weren't.
Well at least your consistent. Back to the original reply to my post: About 85% of college students in Kentucky attend a public college. They are government owned and operated. They should be completely bound by the 2nd amendment. So no they shouldn't have any property rights that allow them to bar students from possessing firearms. Another 12% attend private non-profit colleges. Non-profits should be held to a higher standard than businesses, they don't pay taxes, a lot of them get government funding, they should have to honor everyone's rights. The remaining 3% of college students attend private for-profit businesses. I think it violates ones civil rights to bar them from possessing firearms. No one may violate another person's civil rights.Yes, or white people or asians or hispanics. In my opinion the government has no business getting involved with that. Do I think it is right? No. Do I think it is their right? Yes.
Well at least your consistent. Back to the original reply to my post: About 85% of college students in Kentucky attend a public college. They are government owned and operated. They should be completely bound by the 2nd amendment. So no they shouldn't have any property rights that allow them to bar students from possessing firearms. Another 12% attend private non-profit colleges. Non-profits should be held to a higher standard than businesses, they don't pay taxes, a lot of them get government funding, they should have to honor everyone's rights. The remaining 3% of college students attend private for-profit businesses. I think it violates ones civil rights to bar them from possessing firearms. No one may violate another person's civil rights.
Yes we do give up something with "reasonable restrictions" - that something may be as great as our very lives.
Further your "requirements" for carrying on campus are onerous to the extreme and would seem intended to disarm all.
Well at least your consistent. Back to the original reply to my post: About 85% of college students in Kentucky attend a public college. They are government owned and operated. They should be completely bound by the 2nd amendment. So no they shouldn't have any property rights that allow them to bar students from possessing firearms. Another 12% attend private non-profit colleges. Non-profits should be held to a higher standard than businesses, they don't pay taxes, a lot of them get government funding, they should have to honor everyone's rights. The remaining 3% of college students attend private for-profit businesses. I think it violates ones civil rights to bar them from possessing firearms. No one may violate another person's civil rights.
Didn't forget a darn thing. They are NOT already disarmed but by location. Heaven protect us from such "steps in the right direction" i.e. your list of requirements. Also why have a separate college campus permit when the process already exists for that piece of paper - do you suggest that there is a greater need for control there?Are you not a moderator for this very site? If I had a well typed out thread about groups of people that I hate, would that not quickly be shut down. Is that not "reasonable restrictions"? It if fine when the owner of this site does it but not when other private businesses do? I think it should be. Who pays the bills should make the rules.
Apples and oranges comparison, therefore a straw man argument. OCDO is more like a private club wherein through the act of joining, they commit to irrevocably accepting the rules.
And really, don't get me started on building codes. I don't think that is any of our governments business either.
OK, we'll skip that - not directly OC related anyway.
Disarm- Take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).
One can be without arms (disarmed) by personal choice too - which is what this is all about - the freedom to choose.
Nope, can't be done. They're already disarmed! Did you forget that? I was merely suggesting a way to gain that back. Like I said, a step in the right direction. It is fine to fight for the right to carry, with a permit, if your state doesn't already allow carry, but when I suggest a "permit" to carry on a (private) collage campus that doesn't allow it then I somehow must be against the 2nd amendment? << Because this what you're saying.
More like oranges to oranges, you say that OCDO is more like a private club because when you join you accept their rules? Do you not apply to join a college also? Pretty sure you do. So then you accept their rules too. < You gave me ALL of that, THAT is your argument with the facts added in.
Circular discussion: OCDO is not connected with the government, directly or indirectly. Most all colleges are.
Private (got to keep that up or you'll forget it) Colleges usually already prohibit firearms on campus. Therefor most people are already disarmed. I added that definition to show you that you cannot disarm someone without them having a weapon to take. I have a suspicion that you did forget that, because you are implying my suggestion will disarms them. My suggestions have only been read by OCDO, not colleges. Colleges have had rules prohibiting firearms longer than I have been alive, do not blame me for that.
There are NOT already disarmed - again they are disarmed by location, stepping up on the curb.
I will not blame you for your time on this earth if you stop disparaging my memory.
You do have to admit that my comparison is spot on, if you are honest (colleges v states). You would gladly fight for someone's right to carry if they can't already, even if it is with a permit. Unless it is on college campuses, then it is null and void?
I do daily fight for the right to choose to carry for self-defense. It would be better if you did not suggest that I might be less than honest.
And no, I don't think we do need greater control. My suggestion was LESS. But you can't see that. My suggestion was to permit more firearms on college campuses. You can't just go up to the college board of directors and say "Let every one of your students/teachers/staff have a gun on campus" they would laugh you out of the state. They already have control, all you and I could do is get them to loosen it, a little at a time if we have to.
Originally Posted by 09jisaac
My honest opinion, there shouldn't be very many gun free zones (they don't seem to work out too good) even if there is "gun highly unlikely zones".
I wouldn't have half as much problem if universities would have really strict gun rules but said that they are allowed.
Requirements could be:
KY CCDW (What a joke)
5 Professor recommendations
10 years drug/alcohol free
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm.
Meeting all of those would be tough but still doable. If a collage has these rules to carry a gun on campus no one will fault them for a lack of security.
Do you really believe that?
civil rights definition
A broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals. These freedoms include the rights of free expression and action ( civil liberties); the right to enter into contracts, own property, and initiate lawsuits; the rights of due process and equal protection of the laws; opportunities in education and work; the freedom to live, travel, and use public facilities wherever one chooses; and the right to participate in the democratic political system.
Right to enter into contracts:
Contract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
I don't really have the right to enter into a contract if the government forces me to enter a contract with people I disagree with.
Own property:
I really don't own a single thing if I can't keep others from using it.
Equal protection under the law:
If you have the can MAKE me do business with you but I can't MAKE you do business with me then its not really equal protection under the law. Ie: If you are of another race that I don't like then you can force me to allow you into my business, but me, as a business owner that you don't agree with, I cannot force you to do business with me.
My business isn't public (public: maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.) facilities.
No, I don't think he does either. I don't think anyone here does or could understand your argument, because it makes no sense. I'm glad others have decided to join into this conversation, because I had decided it was a waste of my time trying to make any sense out of what you say.
I am so glad that I went to bed early and missed so much back and forth over so much minutiae.
There are only three things at play as far as I can see, and so many posters seem to have gotten themselves wrapped up in everything except those three things:
1- that 09jisaac wants to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the carry of handguns for personal self defense;
2 - that 5 out of the 6 "reasonable restrictions" suggested are such that it would be practicably impossible for any individual to meet one, let alone all five, of those "reasonable restrictions"; and
3 - 5 out of the 6 "reasonable restrictions" provide snapshot information about the individual while providing no indicatiuon of future performance.
While I am willing to stipulate that past performance is a fair indicator of future performance, I am still wondering how 09jisaac proposes to underwrite the insurance requirement he wishes to impose. Further, since this will be a mandatory policy, I wonder how he expects to finance the payment of the premium since it would be unconstitutional to require a person exercising their RKBA to pay a fee in order to do so. (I will concede for the moment, until case law settles the dispute, that the state may be able to require some sort of license to carry a handgun, either concealed or openly, in public.)
As to the rest of his "reasonable restrictions" - until and unless 09jisaac describes how he proposes to provide the personnel capable of performing the acts needed to meet his "reasonable restrictions", let alone how to fund their activity, I assert that this is merely a ruse designed to prevent behavior that 09jisaac apparently does not believe is in fact a right of the people to engage in.
All the discussion about public versus private colleges/universities, whether or not acceptance of federal or state/local funding makes an institution "public" or not, and the like is just so much distraction.
stay safe.