Liberty U. reverses policy, will allow guns in dorms

You can sleep on it:

Liberty U. reverses policy, will allow guns in dorms

Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. said Wednesday the university will overturn its policy prohibiting concealed firearms in residence halls.

The decision to eliminate these “weapon-free” zones came after Falwell urged eligible students to get their concealed-carry permits during Friday’s convocation.

The school’s executive board supports the decision unanimously, Falwell said in a phone interview, though it hasn't voted on it.

Click to expand...

Good! There is no reason that students on campus should have to leave their firearms behind to be locked up in their cars and still have to treck across campus by foot or bus unarmed while they are on their way to the dorm. With the parking situation there, this is something that happens regularly from what I understand. Additionally this should help those who wish to stay on campus during the day and visit friends as well.

This is really awesome. Hopefully others will follow suit.

The Truth said:

This is really awesome. Hopefully others will follow suit.

Click to expand...

Those who do have several examples to follow.

For the past 8 or 10 years, Utah State law has protected the right of students with carry permits to keep their firearms on their person or in their dorms at all of Utah's taxpayer funded colleges and universities. This covers at least 6 schools I can think of off the top of my head. (Some schools don't have dorms and so it is a moot point.) Public colleges are permitted only to have a process whereby a hoplophobic student can request a transfer to a different room, with a roommate who doesn't have guns.

In that time, across those schools, I'm not aware of any reports of problems.

Charles

Seems a good policy IF the Board of Regents approves it, but still a little short of the bullseye. This policy would only apply to CHPs, OC is still verboten. Points to Falwell for intimating in a video interview for intimating that he carries a firearm in his pocket, and was doing so at the time.

paramedic70002 said:

Seems a good policy IF the Board of Regents approves it, but still a little short of the bullseye. This policy would only apply to CHPs, OC is still verboten. Points to Falwell for intimating in a video interview for intimating that he carries a firearm in his pocket, and was doing so at the time.

Click to expand...

Don't see that OC is forbidden. Just like at the GAB, either CC or OC, but with a permit.

Peace-loving Christ would not carry

paramedic70002 said:

Seems a good policy IF the Board of Regents approves it, but still a little short of the bullseye. This policy would only apply to CHPs, OC is still verboten. Points to Falwell for intimating in a video interview for intimating that he carries a firearm in his pocket, and was doing so at the time.

Click to expand...

Peaceniks object:

How is this ‘Christ-centered’?

An open letter to my former law school colleague, Jerry Falwell Jr.:

Since we attended law school together at the University of Virginia in the late 1980s, our lives have taken us down very different paths.

...

I was alarmed by your call for students at your university to apply for permits to carry concealed weapons so that they can “end those Muslims before they walked in” or “teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”

I fail to see how this call contributes to your university’s stated mission to develop “Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact the world.” Or how it is consistent with your commitment to “contribute to a knowledge and understanding of other cultures and of international events.”

...

Jerry, let us agree to work together to end all acts of violence and build a safer world.

That will not happen by calling students to arms.

Click to expand...

We judge a men/women by the way they act, how they treat others.

We must have the tools of self-defense that when someone attempts grievous bodily harm or threat of death, we may respond in a manner to protect.

The choice for us to act will decided by the aggressor and there shall not be time for preparing then - we must have already made that decision and be so equipped.

Jerry Falwell's words may have been better chosen, but IMO the above ^ is what he meant.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

shaking my head...

ipse

"If thine eye offend thee......"

We'd all be wearing eye patches - jus' saying.

Nightmare said:

I do not recall Christ's rebuke to Peter on striking off Malchus' ear in any of the four synoptic Gospels, Matthew 26:51, Mark 14:47, Luke 22:50-51, and John 18:10–11. Peter was not rebuked for the weapon or the injury. Nor was any mention made, that I recall, of Mosaic or Babylonian law, an ear for an ear.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could quibble about whether Peter was "rebuked" or whether the Lord's words were simply explanatory and comforting. Asking whether Peter didn't understand that Jesus could call down legions of angels to His defense might be considered a soft rebuke by those who would expect an Apostle to know the Lord's power, ability, and mission/Passion.

Notably, once Jesus healed/restored the ear, all physical evidence of any armed resistance was gone and all injury eliminated. Hence, no need under any law for Peter to make any recompense; and no legal case against Peter. I believe assaulting a Roman soldier was likely to bring capital punishment. The Savior saved Peter's life, leaving him free to continue his appointed earthly ministry leading the fledgling Christian church following Jesus' crucifixion and death.

Additionally, in connection with His entry into Jerusalem on a [donkey] (Matt 21) rather than a stallion, removing all evidence of armed resistance to then existing legal authority allowed Jesus to tell Pilate that "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36) To the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus spoke what they considered blaspheme. Roman authority didn't care about such things and so the Jews attempted to make Jesus look like an insurgent fomenting revolution. That is the crime for which Roman authority would have executed a man under existing law. Jesus was innocent of all such crimes. And indeed, being who he actually claimed to be, was also innocent of the religious charge of blaspheme as well. He died truly and completely innocent of all wrong-doing.

Christianity, the teachings of Christ, transcends political and social boundaries. Jesus was also anything but one-dimensional. The man who said "let not thy left hand know what thy right hand does" and that counseled against praying or fasting to be seen of men, also counseled His followers not to hide their light under a bushel, but to live lives of good examples of their faith and good works, to the glory of God. The man who went like a lamb to His own slaughter, used serious physical force on two occasions to cleanse the Temple of peaceful, but defying activity. He who refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery, who saved her from the harshness of the ancient punishment, also cursed an olive tree for appearing to bear fruit when it did not have any fruit to be eaten.

The Jesus I read about in the Bible is not the wimpy pacifist some on the left try to make Him out to be. (Neither is He is the same that some on the right try to paint.)

I'm well past the youthful mistakes of thinking that adherence to Christianity requires a person to align with any particular political party or to adopt a specific position on most political issues of our day. But with that realization that even those I consider to be horrible mistaken on social and political issues can be rock solid followers of Jesus has come a real distaste for anyone who presumes to use my religious beliefs as some kind of bludgeon to beat me into political or social submission.

If Mr. Byler's personal religious beliefs compel him to go about unarmed I will respect his decision. I will not respect any attempt on his part to suggest that Falwell or any other Christian has any similar obligation.

Christians have an obligation to believe Jesus is the Son of God, the promised Messiah, their Savior and Redeemer, and to rely upon His grace for a remission of our sins. We have an obligation to love God and to love our fellow man as ourselves. We do not have any obligation beyond that when it comes to immigration, taxes, self-defense, UFOs, or most other social and political issues.

Charles

Grapeshot said:

"If thine eye offend thee......"

We'd all be wearing eye patches - jus' saying.

Click to expand...

got an extra one?

ipse