Do you support CC on College Campus?

[Coach]

So they require people to wear gags when going into the court? Thanks for the information; I was not aware of that. It must be a new ruling since the last time I was there.

Oh, wait a minute. They aren't required to wear gags, are they. Therefore, the "day to day enforcement" is not the same. Why, I bet that you could even shout "fire" in the crowded courtroom without penatly if there was, in fact, a fire.

Nope. The "day to day enforcement" is not the same. You can keep repeating it until you are blue in the face and it still won't be. One involves prior restraint. The other does not. That is a difference in kind, not just of type. And it's a difference recognized by law, not just part of a discussion on the Internet.

Are both rights limited? Are all rights limited? How is the point you have made and made, but they are limited. Like it or not. Rights have limits and there are reasons for the difference in enforcement if indeed it exists.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Are both rights limited? Are all rights limited? How is the point you have made and made, but they are limited. Like it or not. Rights have limits and there are reasons for the difference in enforcement if indeed it exists.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does the 2nd Amendment say there are limits? Just because you say it has limits does not make it true.

 

[dburkhead]

Are both rights limited? Are all rights limited? How is the point you have made and made, but they are limited. Like it or not. Rights have limits and there are reasons for the difference in enforcement if indeed it exists.

What you are utterly refusing to get is that all limits are not the same.

In the 1st Amendment case, the legal sanctions are on consequences.

"Shouting fire." The legal sanction isn't on shouting "fire" per se, but on the stampede for the doors caused by that shout. Legal sanction not against the speech itself but against the consequences of said speech.

Incitement to riot. Again, you've got a riot, a consequence.

Slander and libel. Part of the standard on these is actual harm done. Consequence once again.

In all these cases the legal sanction is on actual harm done and not on simply having an ability that one might use to do harm.

If you don't have the hard line between prior restraint and sanctions for harm caused, how do you distinguish between a "legitimate limit" and an actual infringement? The "all rights have limits" argument is frequently made by people who want to "limit" the right to non-existence. How do you draw the line against that? Or do you?

Unfortunately, Miller died before his case came before the Supreme Court way back when. As a result the SC only heard the government side of the case. Neither prior restraint nor anything else was argued that might have overturned NFA 34. And the result therefore became precedent that remains with us today.

As for "like it or not" about the way the 2nd is treated differently, and more cavalierly, than other rights, I don't like it. But here's the thing. The way the 2nd is treated was not graven in stone, handed down from the Mount by the Voice of God. It can be changed and I am working toward that end: to try to return this country to actually being a free country.

 

[Old Greg]

I am a student at IUPUI and I believe that being able to carry on-campus would be a good thing. There are many dark parking lots and parking garages, which are not very safe in my personal opinion. I understand the fear involved with a large concentration of people carrying guns and the possibility of shootings. However, those who are licensed to carry have undergone background searches to ensure that they are sound mind to be carrying a weapon. Are there people who are licensed to carry and might lose it, yes but there is always that small chance with any argument of this nature. You also have to think about the psychological makeup of college students. Most of us are responsible and critical thinkers. If the students were allowed to carry and everyone knew that, I believe that people would think before starting a confrontation. If the academic institution were still hesitant, they could employ random permit checks to ensure that those carrying are licensed to do so. If an unlawful carrier was identified, they could be held in custody, weapon confiscated, and punished accordingly. Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

[JDonhardt]

Other: CC & OC by all licensed individuals.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Other: CC & OC by all individuals.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i support the constitution. so i support OC and CC EVERYWHERE

 

[public servant]

I have no problem with (responsible) students carrying on a college campus. But...the first time you prove yourself to be irresponsible (drunk with a gun, under the influence of drugs with a gun, dangerously immature behavior with a gun) not only do you lose the LTCH...but you're tossed out of school as well.

I'm well aware that college age individuals are not the only ones who are irresponsible or immature. I support tougher penalties for *anyone* acting like a fool with a gun.

Just my .

 

[TheCapulet]

What's the record number of months that a resurrected thread has been brought back from?

 

[Roadie]

What's the record number of months that a resurrected thread has been brought back from?

this MAY be the winner.

 

[CSK22]

No I don't, I support all kinds of carrying

 

[CSK22]

"Only teachers with a LTCH"

IU's faculty isn't banned from carrying!!! Just staff and students Tried talking to some people at Purdue about that the other day.

 

[finity]

What's the record number of months that a resurrected thread has been brought back from?

I think I saw one from Sep '08.

What's with all the necro-threads recently? I can't even read all the new threads let alone all of them from over a year & a half ago.

 

[PatriotPride]

i support the constitution. so i support OC and CC EVERYWHERE

This!