College Students use gun to ward off 6 time felon intruder, Now face expulsion

[RRKore]

It's not a public, state university - It's a PRIVATE school.  And while I would never attend such a shit school, I do support people being able to do what they want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY in their OWN PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

It's really weird here - For the state to tell them "You have to allow people to carry guns on your property, in your private place of business" - Isn't THAT a nanny state?  isn't THAT a case of the govt telling people how to run their own businesses? 

I truly LOVE a nation where people can say "No purple shirts or yellow shoes on my property!" and people have to abide... I abhor a nation where the state TELLS YOU that you have to let people wear nazi or whatever stuff in your business.  I love the idea of a businessman being able to say "I don't want any Obama voters on my property, I will not serve you dinner" or something like that.

If you look at it this way... the fact they're allowed to do what they want ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, on their own private university... that's actually a WIN for the libertarian cause.  The people have to vote with their pocketbook and everyone enroll in the gun-friendly University across town, ya know?

All of this should be evident to everyone here.  Pretty telling when folks think that the right to have weapons should trump private property rights.

BTw, not sure why TonyMcFakeJudo cares about this;  He don't need no stinkin' handguns when he's got his National Championship level Judo to rely on.  They can't take that from him.

[dario73]

This is a good question that begs the answer of someone who actually has some legal knowledge.  (Unlike the crew of about 20 of us who come to this board regularly, haha.) 

Your "knowledge" is inexplicably missing from all the crapcare threads.

It's understandable. "Legal knowledge" doesn't translate into common sense.

[RRKore]

Your "knowledge" is inexplicably missing from all the crapcare threads.

It's understandable. "Legal knowledge" doesn't translate into common sense.

Missing how?  Missing because I haven't contributed or missing because what I've contributed isn't what you'd call knowledge?  (I've contributed to lots of those threads, btw.)

Also, screw common sense.  "Common sense" is the well that the uneducated go to way to often.  Actual knowledge is better.  Don't think so?  Cool, why don't you go prove that by going on the steroid sub-forum and argue from "common sense" with the folks including both doctors and those with years of first-hand knowledge about steroid-related topics.  After you've been torn a new asshole, come back and let me know what you think then, OK?

[240 is Back]

aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? 

should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?

yes or no?

[240 is Back]

aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? 

should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?

yes or no?

[scottt]

Only if it doesn't receive federal or state funding.

[doison]

aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? 

should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?

yes or no?

Private institutions should be allowed to set their rules and regulations as they wish, as long as they don't violate personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

They're a private enterprise--not a sovereign nation. 

[doison]

Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical.  

It's like taking a back alley known for violent rape and deciding the solution is to make it a "man free zone" and arresting husbands who attempt to escort their wives through the alley.






Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens under the guise of preventing crime is so absurd that you expect to see it listed under "logical paradoxes" on Wikipedia or as an example used in the definition of "oxymoron."

[agenda21nwo]

So the criminal thought it was a "NO GUNS" zone when he entered, but 'cos someone broke the rule it ruined his happy plans!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gonzaga-students-hit-probation-pulling-gun-intruder-131313733--abc-news-topstories.html

Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.

Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
 
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.

McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
 
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
 
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.


I cant help but see the easy comparison to liberal ideology on guns here and the campus rules.

[tonymctones]

aw, I was hoping to get some conservative opinions here? 

should a private university be able to strip constitutional rights of people who wish to use their facilities?

yes or no?

would you be ok with a restaraunt not serving blacks or gays?

its a private establishment as well

[tonymctones]

Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical. 

It's like taking a back alley known for violent rape and deciding the solution is to make it a "man free zone" and arresting husbands who attempt to escort their wives through the alley.






Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens under the guise of preventing crime is so absurd that you expect to see it listed under "logical paradoxes" on Wikipedia or as an example used in the definition of "oxymoron."

this is more to the point of why I posted this thread

[RRKore]

Either way, expecting to prevent murderous rampages by making an area a "weapon free zone" is silly and illogical.  

Wait a sec.  You're pretty much right about gun free zones not doing jack to prevent murderous rampages, but is that really all they're meant to prevent?  I don't think so.

Don't you think such rules would likely be good at preventing gun violence between halfway-law abiding folks because of temporary loss of self-control due to extreme emotions, though?  

For example, if Doison and I meet in a gun-free zone and begin angrily arguing politics, there's a much smaller chance of him shooting me (which he'd probably want to do after feeling threatened by my obviously superior size and muscularity) in a gun-free zone, right?  

[doison]

Wait a sec.  You're pretty much right about gun free zones not doing jack to prevent murderous rampages, but is that really all they're meant to prevent?  I don't think so.

Don't you think such rules would likely be good at preventing gun violence between halfway-law abiding folks because of temporary loss of self-control due to extreme emotions, though?  

For example, if Doison and I meet in a gun-free zone and begin angrily arguing politics, there's a much smaller chance of him shooting me (which he'd probably want to do after feeling threatened by my obviously superior size and muscularity) in a gun-free zone, right?  

Think about that for a second....how can you make the argument that I won't break the law (more severe offense) by shooting you because I won't break the law (much smaller crime) of carrying a gun there?  



I'm willing to break the law and kill you...but I wouldn't DARE break the law by carrying a gun there.  That's the logic here?

Let's apply that to another scenario.  If someone goes driving around running over pedestrians in some crime of passion, is the solution to put a "no driving zone" sign on the sidewalk?

I say the solution is banning superior musculature intimidation by making city streets a "no muscle zone."

[240 is Back]

Private institutions should be allowed to set their rules and regulations as they wish, as long as they don't violate personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

the constitution promises me right to free speech - but movie theaters can throw me out for talking.

2nd amendment guarantees me right to bear arms - but my local gun store refuses to let anyone enter while armed.  You can put the gun unloaded in its case and carry in.  But as anti-Obama as they are, you are NOT wearing in your permit/glock.

4th amendment promises no illegal searches - but you wear a trenchcoat with bulges to the night club, and yes, they're searching you before letting you enter.  "Open the coat, brah..."

Heck, try wearing a Hitler t-shirt to just about any store... see if they let you in lol...  Free speech, my ass, on private property.


The fact is, we see standard consitutional rights revoked all the day time by PRIVATE businesses.  It sucks, but we're free to use other business.  I do'nt like the "no carry" policy of the gun store, (I bought a glock there a decade back before this policy) so I will go to other stores with less selection, because hey, they're not dicks.   But I do respect their right to be anti-carry dicks.  I just don't shop there. 

[RRKore]

Think about that for a second....how can you make the argument that I won't break the law (more severe offense) by shooting you because I won't break the law (much smaller crime) of carrying a gun there?  

Because you decided to break the law due to being angry.  And you became angry AFTER you entered the gun free zone.  

This makes some sense.  Especially for places where it's likely that some folks are going to completely lose their tempers occasionally (like anywhere alcohol is served to assholes).  

To spell it out:  A guy enters the bar or sporting event complying with the no gun rule because he's a law abiding citizen type but, while there, he gets pissed at something (his team losing or some drunken idiot pawing his wife or whatever) and loses his freaking mind.  Well, even though he's now pissed enough to shoot someone, he can't because he doesn't have his gun.  

(Of course, MY big guns are always with me, if ya know what I mean.) (All right that was corny, yeah.)

Also, for places where it's VERY VERY likely that some asshole will occasionally want to shoot up the place (like the court house or your average hip hop club), you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.

[RRKore]

BTW, sometimes those gun free zones signs make no sense to me, either. 

For example, my gym (a high-end 24-hour club with pools, rockwall, BB and Raquetball, restaurant, and beauty salon-type thing) has a sign saying no guns.  I haven't been able to figure out why, though.  (Except that maybe anexperienced gym-goer like myself might have once tried to cap one of these old-ass freaks who constantly display poor gym etiquette by doing shit like resting on machines in between sets.)

[240 is Back]

you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.

this would violate their 4th amendment rights.

I guess, we all get these rights violated when we fly, right?

It's part of everyday life, we give up some rights for overall safety and the preferences of those who run private establishments. 

Goodness, if the govt told me that I HAVE to let some prick in a cruel shirt, packing heat, insulting my other, onto my PRIVATE property lol... I'd laugh them off

[doison]

Because you decided to break the law due to being angry.  And you became angry AFTER you entered the gun free zone.  

This makes some sense.  Especially for places where it's likely that some folks are going to completely lose their tempers occasionally (like anywhere alcohol is served to assholes).  

To spell it out:  A guy enters the bar or sporting event complying with the no gun rule because he's a law abiding citizen type but, while there, he gets pissed at something (his team losing or some drunken idiot pawing his wife or whatever) and loses his freaking mind.  Well, even though he's now pissed enough to shoot someone, he can't because he doesn't have his gun.  

(Of course, MY big guns are always with me, if ya know what I mean.) (All right that was corny, yeah.)

Also, for places where it's VERY VERY likely that some asshole will occasionally want to shoot up the place (like the court house or your average hip hop club), you'd want to search folks for weapons before letting them enter.

Why stop at the "no gun zone" sign then?  Why not just make it a "no being bad zone" so that no one does anything wrong at all?

[tonymctones]

this would violate their 4th amendment rights.

I guess, we all get these rights violated when we fly, right?

It's part of everyday life, we give up some rights for overall safety and the preferences of those who run private establishments. 

Goodness, if the govt told me that I HAVE to let some prick in a cruel shirt, packing heat, insulting my other, onto my PRIVATE property lol... I'd laugh them off

again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?

[The Showstoppa]

again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?

Yes.

[Archer77]

again are you ok with private establishments not servicing blacks or gays?

Yes, as much as I am for blacks and gays excluding whites from their private establishments-which they do.  It's more complicated when you include privately owned medical facilities.  In this case, barring anyone with a life threatening condition is immoral.

[tonymctones]

Yes.

Yes, as much as I am for blacks and gays excluding whites from their private establishments-which they do.  It's more complicated when you include privately owned medical facilities.  In this case, barring anyone with a life threatening condition is immoral.

Agreed but people like 240 would be the first to piss and moan about it

[240 is Back]

I think every single one of us allows our constitutional rights to be suspended on private property all of the time.

We just pick and choose which ones we want to complain about.

Private property is a tricky issue... how many of us want the govt telling us that 100 people with hitler t-shirts and suspicious gun bulges should be able to sit in our private business? 

[doison]

the constitution promises me right to free speech - but movie theaters can throw me out for talking.

2nd amendment guarantees me right to bear arms - but my local gun store refuses to let anyone enter while armed.  You can put the gun unloaded in its case and carry in.  But as anti-Obama as they are, you are NOT wearing in your permit/glock.

4th amendment promises no illegal searches - but you wear a trenchcoat with bulges to the night club, and yes, they're searching you before letting you enter.  "Open the coat, brah..."

Heck, try wearing a Hitler t-shirt to just about any store... see if they let you in lol...  Free speech, my ass, on private property.


The fact is, we see standard consitutional rights revoked all the day time by PRIVATE businesses.  It sucks, but we're free to use other business.  I do'nt like the "no carry" policy of the gun store, (I bought a glock there a decade back before this policy) so I will go to other stores with less selection, because hey, they're not dicks.   But I do respect their right to be anti-carry dicks.  I just don't shop there.  

Things like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre aren't protected by free speech because they risk endangering others in attendance if it causes a mass panic.  

The examples you give all lead to the act of expressing your constitutional right causing a violation of the rights/privileges/potential-safety, etc of others (I don't necessarily agree with all of them...especially most 2nd and 4th amendment cases)
Ultimately, your individual rights aren't more important than the rights of other individuals.  Private institutions should be free to decide when the expression of your rights infringe too much on the rights of others in the institution.  

I realize that this leaves a huge freedom of interpretation by the institution, but there isn't really a logical "one-to-one & onto" set for each and every case of an individual's right vs its affect on the rights of others.  

The important thing is that private institutions are allowed the autonomy of deciding these cases in their own; the government sets a minimal level of individual constitutional rights/privileges and an individual who feels their constitutional rights are wrongfully violated by a private institution can bring case against the institution with the government.  
The PROBLEM comes when the government over-steps the bounds of (wha should be) a minimal set of constitutionally guaranteed rights and removes the rights of the private institution by micro-managing and over legislating.  

Hippies love to think they're giving "power to the people" with big government regulations, but it's the opposite that happens--it removes the power of the private institution and it negates the power of the individual who feels the private institution is violating their personal rights.  

[tonymctones]

I think every single one of us allows our constitutional rights to be suspended on private property all of the time.

We just pick and choose which ones we want to complain about.

Private property is a tricky issue... how many of us want the govt telling us that 100 people with hitler t-shirts and suspicious gun bulges should be able to sit in our private business? 

you didnt answer the question there moron, are you ok with blacks, gays etc not being serviced at private establishments?