liberals hate first amendment

[USFREEDOM911]

Dont' waste time and space with such silly dodges......I don't expect anyone not trained in fighting to get into the ring with a trained boxer. Nor do I expect some college prof. to react to a situation like a trained cop. Again, you cannot justify the idiocy or introducing weapons into a college environment simply because of what "might happen" while overlooking the problems that already exist there without guns that would escalate to deadly scenarios if guns were introduced.

You seem to forget that befoe anyone can CCW, they have to take the training classes and PASS them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Jeez, you can't be this dense! I'm pointing to how these issues can be drastically and tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms into the scene.

oh, I can't believe I missed this. We're sitting here talking about how students would like to be able to use a firearm for self defense in the case of an active shooter, and all your idiotic thought process can throw out there is how it can be exacerbated with the injection of a firearm? hey moron, do you not realize that a firearm was already introduced? how did that escape your supposed mind?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

oh, I can't believe I missed this. We're sitting here talking about how students would like to be able to use a firearm for self defense in the case of an active shooter, and all your idiotic thought process can throw out there is how it can be exacerbated with the injection of a firearm? hey moron, do you not realize that a firearm was already introduced? how did that escape your supposed mind?

I'd like him to go explain this to the young lady that lost both her parents, to that gunman in that Texas resturant.
Especially since she had left her gun in the car.

 

[Good Luck]

The hypocrite is this young woman, who's suddenly changed her story about what the school said to her.

Also, I went to the school's website and looked at the policy. She has to fill out an Application for Recognition , find a sponsor, and find ten students who would be interested in the club. It's not necessary to pass out fliers, just to speak to people and ask them to join. It's also not rocket science to read the rules and abide by them.

I thought conservatives would approve of following the rules to get what you want, but I guess I'm wrong in your case.

http://www.ccac.edu/default.aspx?id=137452

First, where is your information the student has changed her story? If so, then she is in the wrong for making false statements. However, that does not mean college rules about passing out fliers to form a local chapter of a national organization are right.

I am for following rules and laws IF the laws or rules do not violate my rights. If a law or rule does violate my rights, I have the right to ignore/violate it.

When you point out the provision in the 1st Amendment that allows requirements to be followed in order to exercise the right of free assembly, then I will admit the student was in the wrong for passing out fliers about her intent to form an organization. But trying as hard as I can, I do not see where

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

says anything about any rules to follow. In fact, it says the exact opposite.

CCAC is part of the state education system. That means the governinng body of CCAC is under the same constitutional restrictions as is the state government, which is, via the 14th Amendment, under the same strictures as the federal government. Therefore their requirements are not constitutional. They can in no way prevent the student from organizing her chapter, nor can they prevent her from using peaceful means to promote her activities on campus.

They CAN deny her the use of campus facilities (meeting rooms, etc.) to hold meetings, etc. Then again, there is no indication she asked for any.

Denying her the right to pass fliers that do nothing more than announce the intent to form a chapter of a national organization is dead frigging wrong. And if this were about a gay person forming a gay rights chapter on a Catholic college campus, you'd be agreeing with me 100%.

 

[Good Luck]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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?



Jeez, you can't be this dense! I'm pointing to how these issues can be drastically and tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms into the scene. Other than that, just what in the hell is the purpose for proliferation of guns on campus as you advocate? You and your compadres build up the strawman of "what if", or you take the exception to the rule incident and parade it as proof for your insane advocacy. Of course, all one has to do is IGNORE the points I put forth and the reality of the emotional immaturity that is inherent in campus life to buy into your scenario.

Incredible. You anti-gun fascist fucks are all about limiting (if not eliminating) the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment based on "in case of what might happen" arguments. In fact "what might happen" with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm is your ENTIRE argument for limiting my 2nd Amendment rights. Then you argue AGAINST the right of self defense because it is based on "what might happen?" You talk about depression, etc. - the ENTIRE premise of that approach is "WHAT IF".

It never fails - modern liberal are so fucking brain dead they invariable end up chewing on their own tails when arguing the principles of liberty. To them, liberty is the "freedom" to blindly follow their political philosophy. Opposition is "reasonably" regulated out of existence.

Get a clue. No one knows what the future holds. But when there are reports of increasing frequency of sexual violence on America's campuses, it is quite natural for a young woman to feel the need for additional self defense. When we see reports of people being massacred in gun free zones, it is not illogical for some to desire the means to protect themselves and others in any future incidents.


And yet again it is noteworthy that they try to use their anti-gun bullshit to obscure the fact that free speech is being regulated with their (oh, so REASONABLE) rules and requirements before Brashier can exercise her rights.

BTW: CCAC is not a private college, it is part of the state U. system. THAT makes them part of government, which is bound by constitutional restrictions.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Incredible. You anti-gun fascist fucks are all about limiting (if not eliminating) the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment based on "in case of what might happen" arguments. In fact "what might happen" with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm is your ENTIRE argument for limiting my 2nd Amendment rights. Then you argue AGAINST the right of self defense because it is based on "what might happen?" You talk about depression, etc. - the ENTIRE premise of that approach is "WHAT IF".

It never fails - modern liberal are so fucking brain dead they invariable end up chewing on their own tails when arguing the principles of liberty. To them, liberty is the "freedom" to blindly follow their political philosophy. Opposition is "reasonably" regulated out of existence.

Get a clue. No one knows what the future holds. But when there are reports of increasing frequency of sexual violence on America's campuses, it is quite natural for a young woman to feel the need for additional self defense. When we see reports of people being massacred in gun free zones, it is not illogical for some to desire the means to protect themselves and others in any future incidents.


And yet again it is noteworthy that they try to use their anti-gun bullshit to obscure the fact that free speech is being regulated with their (oh, so REASONABLE) rules and requirements before Brashier can exercise her rights.

BTW: CCAC is not a private college, it is part of the state U. system. THAT makes them part of government, which is bound by constitutional restrictions.

I've got the answer.
He obviously doesn't trust himself or those he knows, with a firearm, so therefore he KNOW ONE can be trusted.

It's obvious that they lack self-conficence to do stay in control.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Dont' waste time and space with such silly dodges......I don't expect anyone not trained in fighting to get into the ring with a trained boxer. Nor do I expect some college prof. to react to a situation like a trained cop. Again, you cannot justify the idiocy or introducing weapons into a college environment simply because of what "might happen" while overlooking the problems that already exist there without guns that would escalate to deadly scenarios if guns were introduced.

but what your uneducated brain seems to ignore is that many civilians also train with weapons, and in SOME states, the concealed handgun licensing requirements exceed that of law enforcement requirements. Really? CCWP are better trained than cops in some states? Why don't you start a thread that proves this? And if you are now professing that the CCWP Prof. is superior to the average cop in response to violent situations where deadly force is being used, are you also professing that they are superior human beings all around? So all those college profs doing the nasty with their students would suddenly stop because they just obtained their CCWP? those who are drunks would sober up? Those under therapy would suddenly be cured? And of course, they would be at precisely the right place at the right time to thwart a gun crazed student, and if not they'd race over to the area and take care of business with no muss or fuss. Hey, if you hurry you could sell this as a screen play to FOX for the FALL season.
so answer the question, because its not a dodge, are police superior to you? Sorry bunky, I gave you an answer above, you just don't like it. but as I previously explained, you can't bullshit past all the previous points I put forth regarding campus life by creating a sidebar that you want to use as a universal proof via a yes/no answer. That old neocon dog won't fly here....a given your absurd statement above that I just skewered, I'd say you're insipid stubborness has become the issue....of which I couldn't give a damn.

mind you, I expect a ridiculous answer considering your perceived frailties in american citizens who are not police officers.

It must be hard to pat yourself on the back with your head up your ass! I didn't realize you were so talented.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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?



Jeez, you can't be this dense! I'm pointing to how these issues can be drastically and tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms into the scene. Other than that, just what in the hell is the purpose for proliferation of guns on campus as you advocate? You and your compadres build up the strawman of "what if", or you take the exception to the rule incident and parade it as proof for your insane advocacy. Of course, all one has to do is IGNORE the points I put forth and the reality of the emotional immaturity that is inherent in campus life to buy into your scenario.

Incredible. You anti-gun fascist fucks are all about limiting (if not eliminating) the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment based on "in case of what might happen" arguments. Hey folks, mastermind here doesn't realize that he's accusing me of two different things and how they contradict each other. That's the problem with NRA dupes, they just don't know what the hell they're ranting about. In fact "what might happen" with a lawfully purchased and owned firearm is your ENTIRE argument for limiting my 2nd Amendment rights. Then you argue AGAINST the right of self defense because it is based on "what might happen?" You talk about depression, etc. - the ENTIRE premise of that approach is "WHAT IF". No stupid, I'm pointing all the factors that dopes like YOU LEAVE OUT in your "what if" scenarios. That's what you can't get past. Learn to read carefully and comprehensively next time, will ya?

It never fails - modern liberal are so fucking brain dead they invariable end up chewing on their own tails when arguing the principles of liberty. To them, liberty is the "freedom" to blindly follow their political philosophy. Opposition is "reasonably" regulated out of existence.

Pity that all one has to is back track and read the chronology of the post to see what a braying ass you are. Again, I'm pointing all the factors that dopes like YOU LEAVE OUT in your "what if" scenarios. That's what you can't get past. Learn to read carefully and comprehensively next time, will ya?

Get a clue. No one knows what the future holds. But when there are reports of increasing frequency of sexual violence on America's campuses, it is quite natural for a young woman to feel the need for additional self defense. When we see reports of people being massacred in gun free zones, it is not illogical for some to desire the means to protect themselves and others in any future incidents.

Here's where the willfully neocon jackass blows a lot of smoke to avoid dealing directly and specifically with the points I put forth previously. That he's gotten everything ass backwards is typical.


And yet again it is noteworthy that they try to use their anti-gun bullshit to obscure the fact that free speech is being regulated with their (oh, so REASONABLE) rules and requirements before Brashier can exercise her rights.

See above.
BTW: CCAC is not a private college, it is part of the state U. system. THAT makes them part of government, which is bound by constitutional restrictions.

Again, you simpleton......the student is trying to circumvent the rules and regulations of the campus with regards to forming groups/organizations as well as formally addressing administration rules. Pretty similar to someone trying to side step state rules, congress, etc. No one was stopping her from talking to students, nimrod. Learn to read.....and remember, it's HER version of what happened behind closed doors.

 

[Good Luck]

Jeez, you can't be this dense! I'm pointing to how these issues can be drastically and tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms into the scene. Other than that, just what in the hell is the purpose for proliferation of guns on campus as you advocate? You and your compadres build up the strawman of "what if", or you take the exception to the rule incident and parade it as proof for your insane advocacy. Of course, all one has to do is IGNORE the points I put forth and the reality of the emotional immaturity that is inherent in campus life to buy into your scenario.

See the two bolded statements.

"issues CAN BE....." "Can be" meaning, functionally "WHAT IF a student with a firearm becomes depressed/angry" with the obvious implication (tragically exacerbated) they will use the firearm for harm.

Then, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH:
"...build up the strawman of "what if'...."

So, when 2nd Amendment advocates use "what if another student starts shooting people randomly...." it is "strawman". But when YOU use the "what if a depressed student gets a firearm.... (with the implication of harm), then it is "making a point?

You are pathetic beyond fucking belief.

 

[Good Luck]

Again, you simpleton......the student is trying to circumvent the rules and regulations of the campus with regards to forming groups/organizations as well as formally addressing administration rules. Pretty similar to someone trying to side step state rules, congress, etc. No one was stopping her from talking to students, nimrod. Learn to read.....and remember, it's HER version of what happened behind closed doors.

And one more time for the totalitarian fucks who see nothing wrong with tramping on the Constitution:

The RULES are in the wrong. They require advance permission to exercise the right of assembly. They require prior approval of the content of media used for free speech.

She has every fucking RIGHT to circumvent rules which abridge her right to free speech and peaceful assembly. How can ANYONE who believe in free speech support a rule system that the student must secure PERMISSION IN ADVANCE to promote student activity around a controversial issue?

Only a bunch of mindless twits wanting government to be their surrogate mommy could support such a rule structure. Either that or outright totalitarians with the agenda of squelching by any means unwanted opposing views.

 

[Taichiliberal]

oh, I can't believe I missed this. We're sitting here talking about how students would like to be able to use a firearm for self defense in the case of an active shooter, and all your idiotic thought process can throw out there is how it can be exacerbated with the injection of a firearm? hey moron, do you not realize that a firearm was already introduced? how did that escape your supposed mind?

No stupid, you obviously didn't follow the discussion..otherwise you wouldn't make an ass of yourself with convoluted logic. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

See the two bolded statements.

"issues CAN BE....." "Can be" meaning, functionally "WHAT IF a student with a firearm becomes depressed/angry" with the obvious implication (tragically exacerbated) they will use the firearm for harm.

Then, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH:
"...build up the strawman of "what if'...."

So, when 2nd Amendment advocates use "what if another student starts shooting people randomly...." it is "strawman". But when YOU use the "what if a depressed student gets a firearm.... (with the implication of harm), then it is "making a point?

You are pathetic beyond fucking belief.

Poor baby....taking things out of context and trying to arrange them to suit your BS premise. Sorry asshole, but my statements and responses IN THEIR ENTIRETY stand. People can read them, and see your folly.

Your finished.

 

[Good Luck]

Poor baby....taking things out of context and trying to arrange them to suit your BS premise. Sorry asshole, but my statements and responses IN THEIR ENTIRETY stand. People can read them, and see your folly.

Your finished.

LOL

When they can't answer back, they claim victory.

Since I quoted the entire paragraph, dipshit, it is not taken out of context.

FACT: the argument against allowing firearms on campus is based on an anticipation of possible future events. (what if a depressed student uses a firearm or what if an angry student uses a firearm).

FACT: the argument for allowing firearms as a means of personal self defense is based on anticipation of possible future events. (what if someone tries to rape her or what if another asshole starts shooting random victims.)


There is nothing wrong with that type of argument. The reason for setting policies and making laws is in order to anticipate, and as much as possible mitigate the negative consequences of potential future events.

What IS wrong is claiming one use is wrong while your own use is right. It is called hypocrisy.

You are right about one thing: people can easily read the drivel you present, the convoluted logic and hypocrisy, as well as your pathetic little insinuations of victory. Only the fact that you can present them in anonymity prevent you from having to hide under your bed in shame.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL

When they can't answer back, they claim victory.

Since I quoted the entire paragraph, dipshit, it is not taken out of context.

FACT: the argument against allowing firearms on campus is based on an anticipation of possible future events. (what if a depressed student uses a firearm or what if an angry student uses a firearm).

FACT: the argument for allowing firearms as a means of personal self defense is based on anticipation of possible future events. (what if someone tries to rape her or what if another asshole starts shooting random victims.)


There is nothing wrong with that type of argument. The reason for setting policies and making laws is in order to anticipate, and as much as possible mitigate the negative consequences of potential future events.

What IS wrong is claiming one use is wrong while your own use is right. It is called hypocrisy.

You are right about one thing: people can easily read the drivel you present, the convoluted logic and hypocrisy, as well as your pathetic little insinuations of victory. Only the fact that you can present them in anonymity prevent you from having to hide under your bed in shame.

You're a pathetic liar, and message #88 clearly shows this. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - liberals hate first amendment
See genius, your OPINION is just that....the FACTS based on the article presented clearly backs up what I originally stated....see message#72 if you don't understand.Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - liberals hate first amendment

But hey, it's not about facts and logic with you....it's about your opinion, that you back up with supposition and conjecture. In your fevered little mind, that's an adequate substitute for facts and the logic derived from them. Well bunky, just trot over to any college or high school and talk to an instructor in argumentation and debate....they'll set you straight.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You seem to forget that befoe anyone can CCW, they have to take the training classes and PASS them.

You should pay attention to what you read......I never denied this moot point of yours. Here, this should clarify things. STY couldn't answer me honestly, maybe you can? Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - liberals hate first amendment

 

[Good Luck]

LOL You wouldn't know debate rules from the rules for Candy Land.

The only FACT you stated was the college has rules. I acknowledged that they have rules. Rules which require students to secure advanced permission to exercise their first amendment rights of free assembly.

I also pointed out the college is part of the state university system, effectively making them a government agency. And the 1st Amendment, incorporated to the state and local governments through the 14th Amendment, clearly forbids any law which abridges the right of free assembly. Being the college is effectively a government agency, their rules which require advanced permission also clearly abridge the right to redress grievances.

As a side argument (in an attempt to cover the fact you advocate abridging free speech rights) you talk about the "dangers" of allowing firearms on campus because college kids are such an emo, unstable group of people. Your basis for this is the assumption that college kids facing depression, bad grades, lost girl friends, etc. "can be tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms". Clearly a "what if" statement, even if you want to deny it is.

Simultaneously you accuse 2nd Amendment advocates of using "what if" to defend their stance on the need for self defense in a manner that is clearly states you think that using "what if" arguments as being "strawman". (Clearly showing you haven't a foggy fucking clue what a strawman argument is while also showing you are a hypocrite of profound proportions.)

You are a pathetic twit with delusions of intelligence. You use opinion sites as references for "facts" repeatedly, then reference your own posts as backup. It's really sad watching you defend your pathetic little fascist philosophies.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

STY couldn't answer me honestly, maybe you can?

oh, I answered you, you just didn't like the answer.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL You wouldn't know debate rules from the rules for Candy Land. I know the difference between opinion and fact, logic and supposition, logical conclusions based on facts and conjecture. You don't...so much more to pity.

The only FACT you stated was the college has rules. I acknowledged that they have rules. Rules which require students to secure advanced permission to exercise their first amendment rights of free assembly. And there is the First distortion by you.......the kid wasn't "assembling", she was falsely representing herself as a leader of a student organization that DIDN'T EXIST. Also, she didn't bring her case before the student gov't. She wasn't "meeting" with anyone.....she was, like you, trying to do an end run around the rules and regulations under the PRETENSE of a 1st Amendment issue....which didn't come up until AFTER the administration nailed her on her BS.
I also pointed out the college is part of the state university system, effectively making them a government agency. And the 1st Amendment, incorporated to the state and local governments through the 14th Amendment, clearly forbids any law which abridges the right of free assembly. Being the college is effectively a government agency, their rules which require advanced permission also clearly abridge the right to redress grievances. States have laws within federal guide lines regarding procedures to change law. You can stand in the street with others and protest...but you have to go through the procedure to change the laws. To repeat; the kid wasn't "assembling", she was falsely representing herself as a leader of a student organization that DIDN'T EXIST. Also, she didn't bring her case before the student gov't. She wasn't "meeting" with anyone.....she was, like you, trying to do an end run around the rules and regulations under the PRETENSE of a 1st Amendment issue....which didn't come up until AFTER the administration nailed her on her BS.

As a side argument (in an attempt to cover the fact you advocate abridging free speech rights) you talk about the "dangers" of allowing firearms on campus because college kids are such an emo, unstable group of people. Your basis for this is the assumption that college kids facing depression, bad grades, lost girl friends, etc. "can be tragically exacerbated with the injection of firearms". Clearly a "what if" statement, even if you want to deny it is. Stop lying....the "side argument" was introduced when I and others pointed out that this kid didn't explain why she felt threatened about on campus enough to carry a gun. If you would do some honest research, you'd know about college campus suicide rates, alcoholism, etc. THAT ARE REAL, BONAFIDE, STATISTICAL FACTS. God damn, you gun dupes are just so willfully ignorant of anything that threatens your world view. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, because I'm damned tired of doing it for you.

Simultaneously you accuse 2nd Amendment advocates of using "what if" to defend their stance on the need for self defense in a manner that is clearly states you think that using "what if" arguments as being "strawman". (Clearly showing you haven't a foggy fucking clue what a strawman argument is while also showing you are a hypocrite of profound proportions.) Jackass, YOU introduced the word "strawman" into our exchanges, NOT me. Go back and check the chronology of the posts. When you did, I accurately proved you wrong by extrapolating on the premise YOU and the other clown kept harping on. Jeezus, if you're going to debate, at least keep things straight and/or know what the hell you're talking about.
You are a pathetic twit with delusions of intelligence. You use opinion sites as references for "facts" repeatedly, then reference your own posts as backup. It's really sad watching you defend your pathetic little fascist philosophies.

It just kills you that the recorded posts show what a pathetic liar and complete fool you are. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - liberals hate first amendment Rant on!

 

[Whomever]

And yet university staff between the ages of 25 and 65, who have had the criminal background check and the training and received their CCW are also not allowed to carry a firearm on campus.

This is not just about the students. This is not just about ages.

This is indeed about free speech.

The right to carry a gun is free speech?
Guns are covered in another part of the constitution.

Darned constitutional revisionists.

 

[Good Luck]

And you continue with your pathetic twaddle.

4) Yes, I called you on a strawman argument because you used a strawman argument. We talk about self defense, you try to counter by talking about how holding a CCWP does nothing to lower the danger possession of a gun poses to depressed students. Sorry, you lose.

3) What you totalitarians cannot understand, since you have no concept of liberty, is a free person does not NEED a "reason" to exercise their rights. If you need a reason for your rights, I pity you. But the FACTS are that in the last decade rates of on-campus rapes have gone up. 20-25% of women are raped on campus during their college career. 65% of those rapes go unreported. (http://collegeuniversity.suite101.com/article.cfm/college_students_sexual_violence) While 90% of incidences of rape are acquaintance or date rape, that means 10% are not - they are the sneak-attack type we traditionally think of when talking about violent rape. 10% of 20% is 2% of women who go to college, ro 150,000 women randomly and forcibly raped while on a college campus. That is not a small number.

Those are FACTS that you choose to ignore in favor of your "facts" (where again did you get those "facts" from? Was it another liberal blog posting figures without reference? Or did you just make up that there is an established correlation between college student mental problems and gun violence on campuses?) As I said, the only actual fact you have presented in all this is the college rules exist. You claim to know the difference between fact, supposition and projection? Your posts prove otherwise.

2) To start an organization, someone has to come out as the leader in the organization process. She was, by her very actions, the leader of the organization process in forming the chapter since she initiated it. Those are the actions of a free person - a concept you clearly cannot get your totalitarian mind around.

1) Again, by requiring advance approval, the rules limit free assembly and free speech. What if only 9 students were interested? She cannot form a chapter then? Bullshit. The college admin would be perfectly within their authority to refuse to meet with any organization she was able to put together. They don;t have to talk with every group students form formally or informally. But they were way out of bounds telling her to cease her efforts to form a chapter unless she cow-towed to their fascist rules.

0) <-- that is the level of debate you are capable of. No where have I lied. You are the one presenting speculation as fact while ignoring real facts presented to you. You are the one who repeatedly tried to derail the focus of the thread (student's 1st amendment rights being denied through intimidation by the college administrators) by bitching about people who want their 2nd Amendment rights even when going to college.