No matter how you look at it you don't own that property. Is it wrong that businesses can reserve the right to not serve someone?
Public universities, dude. Virginia Tech is public. University of Cincinnati is public. Of course private universities can make whatever rules they want. At the same time, the arguments for and against weapons on campus are valid on private campuses too.
For real are you really that opressed by not being able to bring your gun into a classroom?
"You don't really
need these rights. All this freedom isn't really necessary. You shouldn't mind if we say you can't do a few more things." Where is this line where I become oppressed enough to care about individual liberty?
I really do somewhat agree with your line of thinking and I applaud the hell out of you for bringing a fresh and actually useful point to this never ending shithole of an argument. Alot of things in the US could be determined to be unconstitutional. I mean why can an 18 year old kid goto war but not buy a beer? Why can't I drink a beer in the street? Why can't I smoke on most school campuses? Imho theres a lot of "fight club" mentality going on here.
I don't know why you can't do any of those things. I didn't make and don't support those laws either, we just haven't been talking about them here. There are lots of laws that have no purpose except to encroach on people's freedoms for wishy-washy nanny state reasons. I don't think the government should protect us from every risk and danger, however small, by restricting the rights of everyone. Just because there are lots and lots of dumb laws doesn't make any one of them a better idea on its own. But people have different views than I do about the purpose of government, and politicians like to say they protected someone from harm when election season rolls around.
You aren't even concerned with the shootings. Its obvious from reading your posts that you are by far more concerned with carrying a gun and protecting your rights. Theres nothing wrong with that but don't stand behind tragedies to push your agenda.
He's talking about school shootings because they are big news, and they are the rare instances where multiple lives could be saved by one gun. There are many, many more crimes that could be stopped by an armed victim, and even more that could be deterred from ever happening. When desperate people weigh the risks of breaking the law and threatening someone else's safety, I think some of them consider whether or not their victim might be carrying a weapon. It's not just the instances where a gun gets drawn and a crime is halted that count, we need to think about all the times where nothing happens because the bad guy stayed home, and if he is more likely to do so if he is more afraid of running into someone who is armed. We then weigh those preservations of liberty and safety against the potential for accidents and the misuse of firearms. I don't think such accidents pose a danger grave enough to offset the good that armed citizens represent.
I don't have to prove shit actually. You guys are the ones "bucking the system". I simply agree with the current situation. You are suggesting that I should have to back up federal laws to disprove that your theory won't work.
Do you support the law because it's a good law, or do you support it because it's already a law? This is how all those other silly laws stay on the books - nobody makes lawmakers rethink them, and those lawmakers spend their time looking for new "dangers" to protect us from instead.
My position is that every law must constantly prove its worth. No law, no restriction of my rights, is worthwhile just because it's on the books already. If a dumb law gets passed in the heat of the moment, or by corrupt politicians, or because nobody actually read the fine print of the bill, then it's still a dumb law. "It's illegal" is not an argument in favor of it staying illegal.
