liberals hate first amendment

[USFREEDOM911]

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

But your post seemed to imply that the Professor would be UNTRAINED, which is untrue.

 

[ib1yysguy]

But your post seemed to imply that the Professor would be UNTRAINED, which is untrue.

You seriously want to introduce combat training for college professors? You guys are seriously mental.

(A note to everyone who doesn't already know: USFREEDOM never went to college)

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.



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

Your premise seems to be that the Professer would be unable to react reasonable in the situation.

What proof do you have, that he would be unable to; seeing as how you seem to be lumping everyone into a single pile?

 

[Taichiliberal]

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

Oh stop lying....the recorded posts clearly shows how you dodge the issue and then lie about what I write (and apparantly what you write as well). But hey, you seem to think repeating your BS ad nauseum magically makes it's true. Hint: it doesn't. But if you sleep better thinking otherwise, then carry on.

 

[Good Luck]

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

Darned constitutional revisionists.

Try again. The liberals defending the actions of the college are trying to shift the focus from the fact her 1st amendment rights are being denied by focussing on the fact that her purpose is to defend 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Taichiliberal]

But your post seemed to imply that the Professor would be UNTRAINED, which is untrue.

Wrong again.....here's what transpired:
Smarter than you: 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.

Taichiliberal: 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.

Nowhere in my response do I state, insinuate, allude to or assert what you claim. As a side note, SMY has not answered my challenge here to date. Since you are taking up the gauntlet, can you?

 

[Whomever]

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"?

so that means that Liberals can congregate at the Republican national convention?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Good Luck needs to read up on the supreme court's already long-ago decided restraints on time, place, and manner of assembly.

 

[Taichiliberal]

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. Okay, now I know you're either truly stupid or just a plain bad liar. You accused me of concocting some nonsense about the 2nd Amendment and then some "strawman" scenario. When I produced the link to the actual posts that PROVES YOU TO BE A LIAR, you just ignore the FACTS and continue to treat your OPINION, SUPPOSITION and CONJECTURE as truth. Wise up genius, you can repeat your BS until doomsday, but the TRUTH is there for all to see, and to be your undoing.
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.

And of course, you leave out the FACT that we are looking at student to student related offenses! Here's an example I remember from 2 years ago that's still on the web http://thedartmouth.com/2006/02/06/news/many/

If you had PAID ATTENTION to what I previously wrote, you would have noted that my whole POINT was that you have NO guarantee that the students you would allow CCWP on campus are NOT the perpetraitors of these crimes. Let me repeat: YOU HAVE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE CCWP STUDENT IS NOT/WILL NOT BE THE PERPETRAITOR OF THE CRIME. So in effect, you would be throwing gasoline onto the fire and hoping nothing ignites. The sheer stupidity of your proposal becomes more apparent everytime you post.


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. Poor, deluded neocon jackass....you are still content to run off at the mouth with only Half the information. And you proudly display willful ignorance by NEVER discussing the content of the sites I source. Pity that with every post you give me another opportunity to prove you wrong...and you don't even realize it.
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. What bunch of bullshit.......you're still trying to justify her circumnavigating the proper channels with some fanciful tale. You're still trying to misrepresent the chain of events as the article describes. If you've never had the experience or don't remember, do some research into how a student organization is formed at your local college/university. Meanwhile, you STILL cannot refute how the article was analyzed and found flawed in the students "reasonings" for claiming 1st Amendment violations.
1) Again, by requiring advance approval, the rules limit free assembly and free speech. God you're thick.....nowhere in the article did she say that she was just meeting with people or have a loud discussion in the student quad. She was misrepresenting herself as a leader of a student organization that didn't exist. Stop lying. What if only 9 students were interested? She cannot form a chapter then? Bullshit. Yeah, what you just wrote is BULLSHIT. I don't know what the requirements for a student organization are at her college...and neither do you. But what we DO know that she didn't even try to open a "chapter"....she LIED. The college admin would be perfectly within their authority to refuse to meet with any organization she was able to put together. Which she didn't even have, so that statement is purely academic. They don;t have to talk with every group students form formally or informally. A moot point, given she wasn't a leader and the organization didn't exist. 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. Stop lying....they didn't stop her from trying to go through channels, they stopped her from her illegal actions in accordance to university 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.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that bunky....unfortunately for you, the actual FACTS of the case and the logic derived from them keep making you the fool. And since all you've got is just repeating the same old disproven BS, I'm done wasting time with you here.

 

[Good Luck]

Pure twaddle. You sure do like to toss around the label liar, don't you. Pathetic twit. Is that in your precious rules of debate?

But you are correct one one point, all can see your idiocy in your posts.

BTW: I DO happen to know the full rules of the college for starting an "approved" student organization. You see, I do actual research, such as look it up on the college web site: http://www.ccac.edu/default.aspx?id=137452

As far as your accusations toward the student, she was obviously tryinng to start a chapter. She stated she was trying to start a chapter. She was in contact with the national organization about starting a chapter. She made up fliers in order to gain interest of other students to start a chapter. She gave herself as the leader/contact of the effort to start a chapter. You are all hung up on the fact that a chapter had not been started yet. The ISSUE is the college administration interfered with her efforts to START a club and used deliberately intimidating language (academic misconduct). There was no claim (except in your strawman utterances) that a chapter actually existed.

 

[Good Luck]

Let me repeat: YOU HAVE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE CCWP STUDENT IS NOT/WILL NOT BE THE PERPETRAITOR OF THE CRIME.

Right. The dictionary, picture perfect example of the totalitarian excuse for limiting liberty. "You have no guarantee no one will abuse their liberties, so we'll just take them from you." You are the poster boy for the modern totalitarian state. No wonder you cannot comprehend the actions of a free person.

That is in addition to being a pathetic narcissistic twit.

 

[Bfgrn]

and they might have. if 4 people in a room have a gun and 3 of those people target shoot on a weekly basis while the 4th is just an angry idiot, i'm on the side of the 3 people firing two shots at most and hitting the angry idiot.

if fact, if you'd like to see the 'straw man' debunked, I can point you to the statistics that police tend to injure innocent bystanders about 10 times more frequently than civilians engaged in a gun fight.

PROVE it

 

[SmarterthanYou]

PROVE it

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2.5 million times every year.

C. Cramer and D. Kopel "shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws". Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

 

[Bfgrn]

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2.5 million times every year.

C. Cramer and D. Kopel "shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws". Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

WOW, you just PROVED one thing...you are a certified right wing pea brain AND a scum bag...

Talk about "cherry picking" what suits YOUR pea brained BULLSHIT and ignoring what doesn't...

You're dealing with an intelligent liberal... your pea brain tactics are not going to pass with me...

HERE is the excerpt from your proof article that includes the 2% vs 11% you cherry picked........................................ BUT...

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

 

[christiefan915]

So, she just has to wait for a Virginia Tech moment and then she's got your permission?

If she did a little research she'd understand that the chances of a Virginia Tech moment are a fraction of a percent. She has more chance of getting killed in a car accident on her way to school.

 

[christiefan915]

so that means that Liberals can congregate at the Republican national convention?

Sure. Quarantined in a protest-free zone about a mile away.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Pure twaddle. You sure do like to toss around the label liar, don't you. Pathetic twit. Yes, you are....but I believe there is hope for everyone to improve Is that in your precious rules of debate? No genius, it's a label that was aptly applied to the subject of the article, who was misrepresenting herself as the leader for a chapter that did not exist ....something she wanted to start, yet she did not go through proper channels. A liar by any other name.

But you are correct one one point, all can see your idiocy in your posts. And since I wrote no such thing, as the posts show, only a true simpleton would try to lie about what I wrote. Get your ass in gear, bunky....you are making yourself out quite the fool.

BTW: I DO happen to know the full rules of the college for starting an "approved" student organization. You see, I do actual research, such as look it up on the college web site: http://www.ccac.edu/default.aspx?id=137452

No, you do typical neocon wonk half assed research...you don't apply what you find to the situation described. Here genius, THIS is what your little NRA darling DIDN'T have, http://www.ccac.edu/files/Word_Document/5cda608d04684e2f96216ec589e67c2d.doc

As far as your accusations toward the student, she was obviously tryinng to start a chapter. Really? Then why didn't she fill out the application and such? As YOUR SOURCE points out, it's easily available to all students. She stated she was trying to start a chapter. She was in contact with the national organization about starting a chapter. She made up fliers in order to gain interest of other students to start a chapter. She gave herself as the leader/contact of the effort to start a chapter. Stop lying......she misrepresented herself and DID NOT go through proper channels....she handed out flyers as if she had official backing of the national organization (she didn't at the time, and your article does not state that she was or confirms this with the national organization). Again, she was trying to end run around the rules...and got nailed for it. You are all hung up on the fact that a chapter had not been started yet. The ISSUE is the college administration interfered with her efforts to START a club and used deliberately intimidating language (academic misconduct). There was no claim (except in your strawman utterances) Her side of the story...which is suspicious being that she didn't go through proper procedure...not even filling out the paperwork. SHE DID NOT HAVE THE OFFICIAL APPLICATION, WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT IT REQUIRES A LIST OF THOSE INTERESTED IN JOINING. Again, the chronology of the thread shows that it was NOT me that started the "strawman" nonsense. Get your ass in gear, bunky....READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY....or stop lying. that a chapter actually existed.

Wrong again, genius. READ the damned article...it backs what I say. That you don't like it is TFB.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Right. The dictionary, picture perfect example of the totalitarian excuse for limiting liberty. "You have no guarantee no one will abuse their liberties, so we'll just take them from you." Did I say that, jackass? Nope! But in typical neocon fashion, you just LIE about what about what others say in order to support your failed ideology. You're a joke. You are the poster boy for the modern totalitarian state. No wonder you cannot comprehend the actions of a free person. Funny how a free state is allowing jackasses like you do to whatever the hell they want, and everyone else can take a flying leap. Sorry jackass, that's NOT how a democracy works. Maybe you should actual understand what a true totalitarian state is before your fingers hit the keys....make you look less foolish.

That is in addition to being a pathetic narcissistic twit. Awww, the widdle neocon numbskull is all upset because he can't BS his way through a debate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Taichiliberal]

WOW, you just PROVED one thing...you are a certified right wing pea brain AND a scum bag...

Talk about "cherry picking" what suits YOUR pea brained BULLSHIT and ignoring what doesn't...

You're dealing with an intelligent liberal... your pea brain tactics are not going to pass with me...

HERE is the excerpt from your proof article that includes the 2% vs 11% you cherry picked........................................ BUT...

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal. [145]

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]

In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

 

[Good Luck]

Right. The dictionary, picture perfect example of the totalitarian excuse for limiting liberty. "You have no guarantee no one will abuse their liberties, so we'll just take them from you." Did I say that, jackass? Nope! But in typical neocon fashion, you just LIE about what about what others say in order to support your failed ideology. You're a joke. You are the poster boy for the modern totalitarian state. No wonder you cannot comprehend the actions of a free person. Funny how a free state is allowing jackasses like you do to whatever the hell they want, and everyone else can take a flying leap. Sorry jackass, that's NOT how a democracy works. Maybe you should actual understand what a true totalitarian state is before your fingers hit the keys....make you look less foolish.

That is in addition to being a pathetic narcissistic twit. Awww, the widdle neocon numbskull is all upset because he can't BS his way through a debate.[/QUOTE]

You support prohibiting carrying firearms on campus. Your reason is that some students may abuse that right. I just put your totalitarian views into clear language. You approve with the suspension of a constitutionally guaranteed right on the basis that some may abuse that right. You support the philosophy that if there is no way to guarantee a right will not be abused by some, then it is OK to take away that right. Just because you do not like when your hypocritical bull shit political philosophy is put in plain and clear language does not make it a lie. Yours is the opinion of totalitarians. It is that simple.

I also read, listen to, and argue/debate with modern liberal crap on a daily basis. It is the way our society works. (Which is a REPUBLIC you lying ignorant sack of shit - not a democracy) The 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to voice your opinion in any manner you wish, so long as your methods and purpose are not to bring about deliberate or foreseeable harm to others. While I think your opinions are totalitarian shit, I fully acknowledge and defend (spent 40 years doing so) your right to continue to spew your brain dead philosophy.

However, the Constitution also says we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right is not to be infringed. Preventing a person from bearing an arm in specified locations, regardless of your misguided ignorant intent, is infringing on a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which was specifically written to protect our society from government taking and enforcing your "if they cannot guarantee they won't abuse it, we have the authority to take it away", forbids interfering with the right to bear arms, same as it is forbidden to interfere with your right to spout mindless drivel.