Here we go again...
 

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

At least we haven't seen anything the scale of VT.

I was in charge of a computer room where someone brought a gun in. He wasn't showing it, but it was in his belt. Another student came up and told me. I played it off like it was no big deal, but as soon as the student walked away, I called security. The police came up and removed the person, who wasn't a student, but appeared to be stalking one of our students.

Anyone taking bets on this campus being a "gun-free" zone?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So, what will you do with the 1% of people that don't have that potential? I don't believe that 99% of people have the potential to walk into a room and shoot people, that's absurd.

I see your point, environmental conditions driving someone who would otherwise be sane to be a potential killer. Still, I doubt it would be 99%, but who knows. We are in the realm of opinion.

I was in charge of a computer room where someone brought a gun in. He wasn't showing it, but it was in his belt. Another student came up and told me. I played it off like it was no big deal, but as soon as the student walked away, I called security. The police came up and removed the person, who wasn't a student, but appeared to be stalking one of our students. Lesson learned. All people with guns on campus are evil stalkers, and you should rat on them to get their guns confiscated.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Lesson learned. All people with guns on campus are evil stalkers, and you should rat on them to get their guns confiscated. You ARE learning! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/welldone.gif

Originally posted by rmsharpe

It means law-abiding, responsible citizens can be penalized/expelled for protecting themselves on public property under the United States Constitution. I'm not sure you could make the case that someone is law-abiding if they carry a gun in violation of a local law.

This must be some kind of republican mind game you are playing with yourself.

Do you believe people should be able to bring guns on airplanes as well?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So Rosa Parks was a criminal? If she broke a law, by definition she is not law-abiding.

Excuse me while I blow your mind with my common sense.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you. One should not abide laws which are unconstitutional. So one should bring a gun on an airplane...

I like how you've completely missed the point I was making. Someone who breaks the law is simply not law-abiding, no matter what their intentions may be. It's a simple concept, one you clearly struggle with.

If the law is unconstitutional, there are various avenues to have that ruling made. Violating the law is never an answer to a law-abiding citizen.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is carving out a 'gun free zone' on a public campus the same as taking a gun on an airplane? I'm sorry. Your analogy fails. Is an airplane not a gun free zone?

It's bad to obey unjust laws. I'm sure you agree with me here. Laws are laws are laws. It's not up to individual citizens to determine their constitutional status.

For instance, I believe banning gay marriage is unconstitutional but I can't get married in the US.

You are not an expert in constitutional law. I dare you to bring guns everywhere just because you feel it to be constitutional. Good luck with that.

One should abide by just laws, but not by unjust ones. What if I deemed murdering hearing-impaired mentally retarded born-again Christians to be just?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Are you a US citizen? I don't see how your freedoms are in any way impaired. yes.

How is my freedom not impaired in the US if I can marry my partner of 5 years in Canada, but not in the US?

As I said, the banning of gay marriage in the US is something I view as unconstitutional. Most gays feel this way. So you are encouraging gays to get married, as it's an unjust banning. Nice work, Ben.

How is my freedom not impaired in the US if I can marry my partner of 5 years in Canada, but not in the US? How is your freedom impaired if you live in Canada, and choose not to get married? No one's holding you back here Asher, yet you've not chosen to get married for whatever reasons.

As I said, the banning of gay marriage in the US is something I view as unconstitutional. That and a buck fifty will get me a frosty at Wendys.

So you are encouraging gays to get married, as it's an unjust banning. Nice work, Ben. Unlike this law, a ban on gay marriage is constitutional. By your own reasoning, and mine, gay men ought to respect the constitution. As you said there are legal channels they can use to get the law changed such as getting 2/3rds of the states to approve of a constitutional amendment.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is your freedom impaired if you live in Canada, and choose not to get married? No one's holding you back here Asher, yet you've not chosen to get married for whatever reasons. I'm lucky in that I'm a Canadian citizen. Not all Americans can say that. You are avoiding the issue.

It's an "unjust" and "unconstitutional" law. One you are encouraging gays and their supporters ignore as such, and opening the door to gay marriage all across the USA.

Unlike this law, a ban on gay marriage is constitutional. We obviously disagree. On both accounts.

Which is precisely why it's not up to individual citizens to interpret the constitutionality of a law and choose whether to obey it or not.

I'm lucky in that I'm a Canadian citizen. Not all Americans can say that. You are avoiding the issue. How are your freedoms impaired? You are not an American citizen. You are perfectly free to marry whomever you want here, and you have chosen to evade my question.

It's an "unjust" and "unconstitutional" law. Only in your own mind.

One you are encouraging gays and their supporters ignore. If they consider it unjust they can do whatever they want, in my opinion. If they want to celebrate together, they should be able to do so. I see no reason why gay people shouldn't be able to do that together if that's what they want. If they want to have "marriage celebrations" and consider themselves "married" so be it. Go ahead and do it.

Which is precisely why it's not up to individual citizens to interpret the constitutionality of a law and choose whether to obey it or not. The trouble is that the law in the US is constitutional, not because of what I believe, but because of what the justices in the US have ruled. Marraige between a man and a woman is constitutional, and to overturn that will require a constitutional amendment.

I'm sorry asher, it's not my opinion, which is meaningless.

but because of what the justices in the US have ruled

Cause Justices have never later decided they were wrong? What do you think of people going against "seperate but equal"? Should they have gone with it because the Justices said it was Constitutional and thus, in your opinion, "just"?

should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms In schools?

How does a bubble ban on the entire grounds of a university campus equate to not being able to carry a gun into the building of a school?

Scalia by referring to buildings, clearly means that it's ok for a school to post that you are not allowed to carry a gun into the school.

Clearly the obnoxious gun free zones on campus grounds are unconstitutional. I hope someone hauls a student to courts soon over this issue, because he brought a gun on campus.

In schools?

How does a bubble ban on the entire grounds of a university campus equate to not being able to carry a gun into the building of a school?

Is a University a school, Ben?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you reject stare decisis? Awful big bag of worms Imran. Has the Supreme Court gotten cases wrong in the past before in your opinion? And if they have, does that mean you've rejected stare decisis?

I don't know of a single jurist/professor who believes in stare decisis that thinks the Court gets it correct all the time. Not one. The world is not either or, Ben, no matter how much you want to make it so.

Yes. I am both an American and a Canadian citizen. I have explicitly stated in this very thread I am also an American citizen. You are AGAIN avoiding the topic with what you view as technicalities, when even those are wrong. Are your freedoms impaired? Simple question, yes or no.

No, in the mind of a HUGE portion of the US population it is an unjust and unconstitutional law. As such, you would have them ignore the law and permit gay marriage. I would have them ignore the law and have ceremonies which they call 'marriage' if they wish to do so. I don't see anything in the constitution preventing them from having 'marriage' ceremonies to celebrate their togetherness.

Are you talking about the people or the civil authorities?