liberals hate first amendment

Bfgrn said:
A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County
pa.gif
Click to expand...

this proves little, considering MOST educational institutions are liberal. but thanks for providing that bit of info.
 
In April, (college of your choice (COYC)) student Jane Doe created pamphlets to distribute to her classmates encouraging them to join her in forming a chapter of the (organization of your choice) organization at COYC. The handbill states that the group "supports the (issue of your choice)." (which is at variance with COYC policy). She personally distributed copies of the flier, which identified her as a "Campus Leader" of the effort to start the chapter.

On April 24, Administrator 1, Student Development Specialist at COYC's Campus, summoned Doe to a meeting that day with Admin1 and Administrator 2, Dean of Student Development. According to Jane Doe, the deans told Doe that passing out her non-commercial pamphlets was prohibited as "solicitation." They told Doe that trying to "sell" other students on the idea of the organization was prohibited.

COYC also told Jane Doe that the college must pre-approve any distribution of literature to fellow students, and that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, even insisting that Doe destroy all copies of her pamphlet.

Doe reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she (engaged in activities regarding the issue off campus of on campus).

When Doe stated that she wanted to be able to discuss this policy freely on campus, she was told to stop doing so without the permission of the COYC administration. Admin 2 reportedly said, "You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us." Doe was then told to cease all activities related to her involvement with (organization of your choice) and that such "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

NOW tell us this is not about free speech, you hypocritical totalitarian fucks.
 
christiefan915 said:
Her argument about free speech is bogus. She wants [herself] and other students to carry concealed weapons on the campus, but the policy is that weapons aren't permitted, so now she's whining about denial of free speech. It's not about her right to say what she wants, it's about her attempt to bring concealed-carry to the campus, and a cautious dean looking out for the best interests of his students. There's never been a shooting at CCAC before and she gives no reason why she feels unsafe.

Christine "Christa" Brashier, 24, of Squirrel Hill, who is studying to be an elementary school teacher, said she feels unsafe on the school's Allegheny campus and would like the right to carry a gun while on school property.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09148/973334-53.stm#ixzz0GoWbcjNf&B



We here already know what happens when excitable teenagers have guns on campus. Five athletes at another college were shot, one seriously, when a stupid argument broke out at a school dance.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/atlantic10/2006-09-19-duquesne-arrest_x.htm
Click to expand...

What's the motivation for these people? Does she live in a high crime area at home? Had friends or family killed in a drive by or hold up? Like you said, she gives no reason for why she feels unsafe on campus. Of course, the example you gave will just get the moronic knee jerk response from NRA gun dupes, "if the good students were armed, there may have been less death or no deaths of anyone other than the perpetraitors."

In another discussion an article was posed where a gun carrying student foiled an intended deadly robbery. This was the poster child for advocacy of allowing CCWP for students on campus. When I pointed out how rare such incidents are, and that there is no precedent on how CCW would factor into the usual campus rapes, fights, emotional traumas, alcohol fueled arguments, I get a snow job with the underlying sentiment that "just in case" supercedes all.

I'm beginning to think this whole gun issue for a lot of advocates is not about personal safety for most, but some mis-placed sense of personal power...."you can't tell me what to do!" :(
 
Note the totalitarians refuse to look beyond the fact the student was advocating 2nd Amendment rights. In their little world, suppression of free speech is fine and dandy as long as the speech being suppressed is disagreeable to their pathetic philosophy.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
when it concerns topics they hate.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10645.html



anybody see this coming on a wider scale in the near future? I do.
Click to expand...


1. When I was in college, any student group or organization had to go through a procedure to be officially recognized by the Student Gov't and the College Student administration board. Once recognized and created, this group could then advocate against school policy, bring up discussions to Student Gov't, and officially challenge college policy. By the information given so far, this kid was trying to by-pass the system.

2. There is nothing here to indicate that there is a on-going problem at the campus that would require students to be strapped on campus.

3. What makes a student with CCWP more immune depression, emotional arguments and relationships, drugs, alcohol and all the other trials and tribulations that accompany 4 years of learning and growing?
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. When I was in college, any student group or organization had to go through a procedure to be officially recognized by the Student Gov't and the College Student administration board. Once recognized and created, this group could then advocate against school policy, bring up discussions to Student Gov't, and officially challenge college policy. By the information given so far, this kid was trying to by-pass the system.

2. There is nothing here to indicate that there is a on-going problem at the campus that would require students to be strapped on campus.

3. What makes a student with CCWP more immune depression, emotional arguments and relationships, drugs, alcohol and all the other trials and tribulations that accompany 4 years of learning and growing?
Click to expand...
1) Read the 1st Amendment - pay particular attention to the part about right of assembly. Maybe you can point out the part that allows governing bodies to require permission first.

2) Try looking at college rape statistics. (You did notice that the erson in question advocating CCW is female?)

3) Who said that CCW would address any of those issues? Can you say "strawman"?
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. When I was in college, any student group or organization had to go through a procedure to be officially recognized by the Student Gov't and the College Student administration board. Once recognized and created, this group could then advocate against school policy, bring up discussions to Student Gov't, and officially challenge college policy. By the information given so far, this kid was trying to by-pass the system.

2. There is nothing here to indicate that there is a on-going problem at the campus that would require students to be strapped on campus.

3. What makes a student with CCWP more immune depression, emotional arguments and relationships, drugs, alcohol and all the other trials and tribulations that accompany 4 years of learning and growing?
Click to expand...

If these college campus rules were due to the immaturity of the students, then why are 50 year old professors with CCWs not allowed to carry on campus? This is about trying to create another Gun Free Zone. Which translates to a Unarmed Victims Who Cannot Fight Back Zone.
 
WinterBorn said:
If these college campus rules were due to the immaturity of the students, then why are 50 year old professors with CCWs not allowed to carry on campus? This is about trying to create another Gun Free Zone. Which translates to a Unarmed Victims Who Cannot Fight Back Zone.
Click to expand...

CC translates to slaughter zone. Public rapes would quadruple and teachers would be massacred for giving bad grades. Gun owner. Murderer. No difference.
 
WinterBorn said:
So if the woman had a few drinks its ok to rape her????

Besides, the same statistic shows that 25% were stone-cold sober when they were raped. Had they been allowed to carry they could have reduced the on-campus rapes by 25%.
Click to expand...

Shooting is not the only way to defend oneself against assault. Statistics show that there's a high number of rapes in the military. These women are trained to become expert with guns, yet not only do they not shoot, the perps get off with a slap on the wrist. Why doesn't the military encourage women soldiers to shoot their rapists?

"According to the Department of Defenses own statistics 74-85% of soldiers convicted of rape or sexual assault leave the military with honorable discharges (meaning the rape conviction does not appear on their record!). Only 2-3% of soldiers accused of rape are ever court marshaled. And only 5-6% of soldiers accused of domestic abused are ever court marshaled. In fact several multiple homicides have recently taken place on military bases that have not even been criminally prosecuted!"
 
christiefan915 said:
Shooting is not the only way to defend oneself against assault. Statistics show that there's a high number of rapes in the military. These women are trained to become expert with guns, yet not only do they not shoot, the perps get off with a slap on the wrist. Why doesn't the military encourage women soldiers to shoot their rapists?
Click to expand...
Learn before you spout mindless drivel labeled as statistics.

1) While everyone in the ground forces is trained in the use of the infantry rifle, only those whose MOS or duty slot requires the use of a handgun are trained in them. Those not in the ground forces may or may not be trained in any kind of firearms use.

2) Most military personnel are only required to qualify with their weapon once or twice per year, (if they need to qualify at all) with qualification scores so low they basically mean the shooter has the barrel pointed down range when pulling the trigger.

3) Military personnel are not allowed to carry personal firearms on duty, or anywhere on a military base except family housing. If you live in a barracks, you are required to check out your personal firearm from the armory and check it back in when finished using it.

4) If the rape conviction stats for military are true, it needs to be fixed. But that is no excuse to limit one;s ability to defend themselves. Nor is it an excuse to limit a students ability to even talk about the subject.
 
Good Luck said:
3) Military personnel are not allowed to carry personal firearms on duty, or anywhere on a military base except family housing. If you live in a barracks, you are required to check out your personal firearm from the armory and check it back in when finished using it.
Click to expand...

THIS!!!

it's no wonder there's this huge misconception about the superman qualities of police/military and firearms, usually spouted by people who have no idea of the truth.
 
Good Luck said:
Learn before you spout mindless drivel labeled as statistics.

The statistics are from the DoD but you're probably right; I do believe they'd under-report anything that might smear the image.

1) While everyone in the ground forces is trained in the use of the infantry rifle, only those whose MOS or duty slot requires the use of a handgun are trained in them. Those not in the ground forces may or may not be trained in any kind of firearms use.

The post was about defending oneself from rape on campus via concealed carry. I pointed out that women in the military, who have access to guns, aren't using them to defend against rape. I didn't say the only gun that could be used in that defense was a handgun. Besides, doesn't every recruit learn how to handle a weapon in basic training?

2) Most military personnel are only required to qualify with their weapon once or twice per year, (if they need to qualify at all) with qualification scores so low they basically mean the shooter has the barrel pointed down range when pulling the trigger.

Most civilians don't have to qualify, period. What does that have to do with concealed carry on campus?

3) Military personnel are not allowed to carry personal firearms on duty, or anywhere on a military base except family housing. If you live in a barracks, you are required to check out your personal firearm from the armory and check it back in when finished using it.

Again, this isn't about shooting with a personal firearm, but with any firearm.

4) If the rape conviction stats for military are true, it needs to be fixed. But that is no excuse to limit one;s ability to defend themselves. Nor is it an excuse to limit a students ability to even talk about the subject.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that one doesn't need to defend oneself by shooting. I've taken self-defense courses and probably many other women have also. I carry pepper spray when necessary. The theory that life is so unsafe that only a gun will protect a person is just an NRA talking point, IMO. The student needs to come clean about her real reason for wanting to carry on campus.
 
christiefan915 said:
The whole point is that one doesn't need to defend oneself by shooting.
Click to expand...
no, but it's generally the best way.

christiefan915 said:
The theory that life is so unsafe that only a gun will protect a person is just an NRA talking point, IMO.
Click to expand...
the NRA does not say that ONLY a gun will protect a person, just that it's the most effective.

christiefan915 said:
The student needs to come clean about her real reason for wanting to carry on campus.
Click to expand...

she already has, or haven't you been reading the news over the last few years?

just out of curiosity, what do YOU think her reason for wanting to carry on campus is? and have you read those cases I posted yet?
 
Superfreak said:
I think the above is contradictory. If they had done their job, the kids would have been protected.

Also, had the students been able to carry concealed weapons, one of them could have fired back at the kid who was on a shooting spree rather than waiting on some rent-a-cop to pat someone down.
Click to expand...

The kid who pulled the gun was in a crowd of teens who were egging on a fight. The shooter meant to hit the guy who was flirting with his girl, but he ended up firing indiscriminately and hitting five people instead of one. I can just imagine what the toll would have been had others pulled out guns and started firing away.
 
christiefan915 said:
The kid who pulled the gun was in a crowd of teens who were egging on a fight. The shooter meant to hit the guy who was flirting with his girl, but he ended up firing indiscriminately and hitting five people instead of one. I can just imagine what the toll would have been had others pulled out guns and started firing away.
Click to expand...

so you're equating one angry idiot firing indiscriminately to every gun owner in America? I thought you liberals were supposed to be open minded?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'll bet that 30 students at VT felt that way, right up until Cho closed the door behind him. I wonder how many felt, at that moment, that they wished they also had a gun?
Click to expand...

Probably all of them. But situations like Virginia Tech are the exception, not the rule.

In 2004, there were 29,569 gun deaths and 64,389 gun injuries in the U.S.

Cho killed 32 students. It's clear that people like Cho aren't responsible for all the gun violence in the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top