So its fine with you for a restaurant owner to ban black people from his business?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
interesting conversation with a student
- Thread starter Curtis C
- Start date
- Status
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
Private property owners do not have the absolute right/privilege of making up there own rules. They are subject to a myriad number of laws and ordinances - building codes, fire codes, safety regulations down to the minimum width of doors. When the private entity is open to the public then an additional set of limitations comes into play - the Americans With Disabilities Act. Short answer - all private properties are not equal.
BTW - the exception does not make the rule.
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.
Not that I disagree with you , but that has not yet been established by statute or by a court of record. Now in a perfect world.........
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
And really, don't get me started on building codes. I don't think that is any of our governments business either.
Disarm- Take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).
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.
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
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?
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
This is LESS control -OMG!
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.
Yep sure have gone up to colleges and said "Let My people Carry." They didn't laugh us out of town either - they were very upset that they might loose some of the authority over their underlings. OCDO and VCDL has steadfastly fought to have the laws changed whereby this would be an option for all LAC.
For myself, I blame the GA and the college administrators for allowing the conditions to exist to that contributed to the VaTech tragedy. I will not lay down that gauntlet until these things change.
Perhaps we agree to a point - will concede that, but not continue this circuitous, back and forth route. Carry on.
The Civil Rights Act disagrees with you, for the most part anyway. But I think an individuals right to bear arms is nearly absolute.
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.
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.
09jisaac
Regular Member
Lets see if I can get the old people to understand this. Try to keep up, please if you get lost start back at the beginning and read it again. Read this about five times, because it seems none of you get this >>> Most colleges in the state of Kentucky already prohibit firearms on campus. <<< Understand that part? No? Maybe read it again. That is what I was basing my list on. I don't know how it was like when you all went to college, but that is how it is now. To get them to loosen the grip that they already have you either need to do it slowly and make them feel that they are still in control and have some oversight (public or private), or take them to court and get it thrown out as a violation of the 2nd amendment (if it is a publicly funded college) this method is also slow. Though it might mirror "reasonable restrictions" they always go the other way, they restrict rights MORE. They don't allow more people to carry, like my suggestions would do(from none to one if that is all I can get).
I have had to clarify my point this whole time, and none of you seem to get it. You all would fight for the right to go from no carry to carry with a permit in a STATE, and think that you have had a victory, what is the difference here? Very little, except I was talking of private property, and yet when I make a suggestion how to allow more people to carry, this ^^^ is what I get.
And Skidmark: There is insurance sold every day that fits my description (property damage, other persons injury your injury caused by you), I am sure you can get someone to tailor that to your needs. If money is to be made, someone will make it.
Well 09jisaac you have surely been permitted to say your piece and cast your vote/suggestion; however, it doesn't appear to have garnered much agreement. That others have made their points and that such has impact, seems to be lost on you.
You repeatedly suggest that we do not have good reading comprehension and that we must be chided to read what you have written 4 or 5 times - that is insulting and therefore approaches a rule violation. Recommend that you give that method a break.
You repeatedly suggest that we do not have good reading comprehension and that we must be chided to read what you have written 4 or 5 times - that is insulting and therefore approaches a rule violation. Recommend that you give that method a break.
09jisaac
Regular Member
Is it not insulting to say that I am not a supporter of 2a without proof or even evidence? Is it not insulting to me to act like I am a fool for stating something I didn't state? It is an insult to pass judgement on what I wrote without reading and including its entirety in you judgment? I read everything of what was wrote here and I addressed every part, yet you all take a single part of what I wrote without looking at the meaning of anything.
If I said "Whites are weaker pieces if your strategy is to take and hold the middle (chess)" would it be fair for you all to take "Whites are weaker" and call me racist? Hardly, not one of you addressed my suggestion, just my list.
If I said "Whites are weaker pieces if your strategy is to take and hold the middle (chess)" would it be fair for you all to take "Whites are weaker" and call me racist? Hardly, not one of you addressed my suggestion, just my list.
- Status