Anti-gun policy hitting a new low?

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for airshocker
#1 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

This story just broke today. Basically, a woman has a stalker and in order to protect herself is trying to get a firearm. Her age restriction has already been waived by the state that she lives in, her only obstacle is the college policies preventing her from carrying one on campus.

Do you agree with her or the college?

I'm of the mind that if someone has a legitimate reason for wanting to protect themselves, then nothing, not even a college's policies, should be able to legally prevent them from doing so.

Avatar image for dave123321
#2 Posted by dave123321 (35329 posts) -

This wouldn't be a new low but rather just a look at a low that has been there awhile

Avatar image for airshocker
#3 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

This wouldn't be a new low but rather just a look at a low that has been there awhile

I had a different title but the 60 character limit forced me to change it to the title you see now.

Aside from that, WHAT DO YOU THINK, Dave?

Avatar image for dave123321
#4 Posted by dave123321 (35329 posts) -

I want stun guns

Avatar image for airshocker
#5 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

I'm glad you agree with my original post, Dave.

Avatar image for dave123321
#6 Edited by dave123321 (35329 posts) -

That's good

Avatar image for Master_Live
#7 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

Avatar image for airshocker
#8 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#9 Edited by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
@airshocker said:

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

Not really. If I were to, for example, walk into a restaurant and start spouting racist rhetoric, and they were to kick me out, would I be able to sue them? Would I have grounds for that? No. Because it's their private property and they can kick me out for whatever reason they like, provided it doesn't go into the area of illegal discrimination.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#10 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#11 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

From the article:

"She filed a restraining order, but it did little to keep Bennett away. Woolrich says he constantly harassed her during her first two years at Dartmouth, stalking her on social media and sending messages in which he “promised” to fly across the country to see her at college."

Avatar image for StrifeDelivery
#12 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1901 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

She has one, as stated in the article which I guess you didn't read. Also, her stalker ignored the order anyway.

But back on topic: If a gun won't work on campus, can't she just try some other defense item (mace, taser, stun gun), or are they classified under the weapons provision and banned?

Avatar image for airshocker
#13 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

Not really. If I were to, for example, walk into a restaurant and start spouting racist rhetoric, and they were to kick me out, would I be able to sue them? Would I have grounds for that? No. Because it's their private property and they can kick me out for whatever reason they like, provided it doesn't go into the area of illegal discrimination.

No where in the first amendment does it say you have freedom from the consequences of your speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. The owners of that property aren't limiting your speech, they're kicking you out because of it. That's the difference.

Avatar image for airshocker
#14 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

I see you didn't read the article, at all.

"She filed a restraining order, but it did little to keep Bennett away. Woolrich says he constantly harassed her during her first two years at Dartmouth, stalking her on social media and sending messages in which he “promised” to fly across the country to see her at college."

Also, with regards to your inference that permit holders are irresponsible:

"Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or inebriated students. But the pro-gun rights Crime Prevention Research Center, in a study published on Monday, said there have been no reported problems or issues with college-age permit holders on campuses in the nine states – Colorado, Florida,Wisconsin, Utah, Pennsylvania,Oregon, Mississippi, Kansas and Idaho – whose laws mandate that students and others be permitted to carry concealed handguns on public college grounds."

Avatar image for Serraph105
#15 Edited by Serraph105 (31774 posts) -

So could she get a can of mace or stun gun? Does she really need to kill the, what appears to be, 71 year old man just to protect herself? Also it would appear that alerting the authorities worked seeing as how the dude is currently in jail.

Why does she need a special allowance from the college to keep herself safe from a jailed individual who is on the other side of the country?

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#16 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
@airshocker said:

@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

Not really. If I were to, for example, walk into a restaurant and start spouting racist rhetoric, and they were to kick me out, would I be able to sue them? Would I have grounds for that? No. Because it's their private property and they can kick me out for whatever reason they like, provided it doesn't go into the area of illegal discrimination.

No where in the first amendment does it say you have freedom from the consequences of your speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. The owners of that property aren't limiting your speech, they're kicking you out because of it. That's the difference.

By that logic, the government could lock you up for saying something, and that could just be "the consequences of your speech."

Private institutions do not have to observe your right to free speech. They set their own policies on that matter. By the same token, they don't have to respect your right to bear arms, as evidenced by the numerous places that have decided to no longer allow open carry after some idiots came in brandishing rifles. These institutions have, of course, not been held legally accountable.

Avatar image for airshocker
#17 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

So could she get a can of mace or stun gun? Does she really need to kill the, what appears to be, 71 year old man just to protect herself? Also it would appear that alerting the authorities worked seeing as how the dude is currently in jail.

Why does she need a special allowance from the college to keep herself safe from a jailed individual who is on the other side of the country?

Mace, especially consumer versions, aren't always reliable. The pressurized content can go bad after awhile. Stun guns are illegal for most people in many states. What happens when the guy gets out of prison? What happens if he posts bail or if the bail amount gets substantially lowered(That happens frequently)?

Why does she need special allowance to protect herself from harm?

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#18 Edited by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

I see you didn't read the article, at all.

"Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or inebriated students. But the pro-gun rights Crime Prevention Research Center, in a study published on Monday, said there have been no reported problems or issues with college-age permit holders on campuses in the nine states – Colorado, Florida,Wisconsin, Utah, Pennsylvania,Oregon, Mississippi, Kansas and Idaho – whose laws mandate that students and others be permitted to carry concealed handguns on public college grounds."

Nope. Don't want to give FOX News any clicks.

I'm sticking with what I said until I see a more reputable source not from FOX News or a pro-gun think tank I've never heard of.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#19 Edited by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

I see you didn't read the article, at all.

"Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or inebriated students. But the pro-gun rights Crime Prevention Research Center, in a study published on Monday, said there have been no reported problems or issues with college-age permit holders on campuses in the nine states – Colorado, Florida,Wisconsin, Utah, Pennsylvania,Oregon, Mississippi, Kansas and Idaho – whose laws mandate that students and others be permitted to carry concealed handguns on public college grounds."

Nope. Don't want to give FOX News any clicks.

I'm sticking with what I said until I see a more reputable source not from FOX News or a pro-gun think tank I've never heard of.

Judging by the URL, it isn't FOX News.

So... yeah. You're kinda way off here.

Avatar image for airshocker
#20 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

Not really. If I were to, for example, walk into a restaurant and start spouting racist rhetoric, and they were to kick me out, would I be able to sue them? Would I have grounds for that? No. Because it's their private property and they can kick me out for whatever reason they like, provided it doesn't go into the area of illegal discrimination.

No where in the first amendment does it say you have freedom from the consequences of your speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. The owners of that property aren't limiting your speech, they're kicking you out because of it. That's the difference.

By that logic, the government could lock you up for saying something, and that could just be "the consequences of your speech."

Private institutions do not have to observe your right to free speech. They set their own policies on that matter. By the same token, they don't have to respect your right to bear arms, as evidenced by the numerous places that have decided to no longer allow open carry after some idiots came in brandishing rifles. These institutions have, of course, not been held legally accountable.


You've always been responsible for what you say. There's a reason you can get in trouble for screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded building when there isn't one. There's a reason you can get in trouble for lying in certain situations.

Yes, they do.

Avatar image for gamerguru100
#21 Posted by gamerguru100 (12686 posts) -

After reading the story, I agree with the student. The stalker had gloves and a knife in his car, so this proves that he was indeed a threat. You can't really blame her for wanting to leave the university after the creeper gets out of jail since he knows where she goes to school. At least let her carry a snub nose or something.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#22 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

@PannicAtack: lol what?

The URL: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/06/ivy-leaguer-plagued-by-stalker-may-drop-out-over-schools-anti-gun-policy/

Avatar image for airshocker
#23 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

I see you didn't read the article, at all.

"Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or inebriated students. But the pro-gun rights Crime Prevention Research Center, in a study published on Monday, said there have been no reported problems or issues with college-age permit holders on campuses in the nine states – Colorado, Florida,Wisconsin, Utah, Pennsylvania,Oregon, Mississippi, Kansas and Idaho – whose laws mandate that students and others be permitted to carry concealed handguns on public college grounds."

Nope. Don't want to give FOX News any clicks.

I'm sticking with what I said until I see a more reputable source not from FOX News or a pro-gun think tank I've never heard of.

That just makes you an idiot.

Avatar image for lostrib
#24 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Master_Live said:

Seeing how it is a private institution I would either conform to their policy or change school. It sucks for her.

That excuse doesn't fly. Constitutional amendments apply to everything in the United States. That includes private property.

That's kind of the opposite point of the Constitution

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#25 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

@airshocker: There is no need to be upset just because not everyone shares your love for deadly weaponry. :(

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#26 Edited by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

@airshocker: Ran a search for "private property." This is the first thing that comes up

Can I protest on private property?

As a rule, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to engage in free-speech activities on private property unless you own or lease the property, or the owner has given you permission to use the property for speech. But you may canvass door-to-door in residential areas, unless the homeowner has put up a "no solicitors" sign.

So the rules are different when we start dealing with private institutions.

Avatar image for lostrib
#27 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@StrifeDelivery said:

@Aljosa23 said:

Guns in Colleges? LOL

Yeah, no thanks. This lady is stupid. Just get a restraining order.

She has one, as stated in the article which I guess you didn't read. Also, her stalker ignored the order anyway.

Yeah, a restraining order isn't really preventative or protective

Avatar image for airshocker
#28 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@PannicAtack said:

@airshocker: Ran a search for "private property." This is the first thing that comes up

[quote=ACLU]Can I protest on private property?

As a rule, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to engage in free-speech activities on private property unless you own or lease the property, or the owner has given you permission to use the property for speech. But you may canvass door-to-door in residential areas, unless the homeowner has put up a "no solicitors" sign.[/quote]

And the school isn't considered private property. It's considered public property.

Avatar image for airshocker
#30 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker: There is no need to be upset just because not everyone shares your love for deadly weaponry. :(


Calling you an idiot for being biased and unreasonable doesn't make me upset.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#31 Edited by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@PannicAtack said:

@airshocker: Ran a search for "private property." This is the first thing that comes up

[quote=ACLU]Can I protest on private property?

As a rule, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to engage in free-speech activities on private property unless you own or lease the property, or the owner has given you permission to use the property for speech. But you may canvass door-to-door in residential areas, unless the homeowner has put up a "no solicitors" sign.[/quote]

And the school isn't considered private property. It's considered public property.

100% sure Dartmouth (and just about any Ivy League) is a private (non-profit) institution (though they do get federal funding and tax breaks).

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#32 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

@airshocker: Dartmouth, like the other Ivy League schools, is a private university. Not a public institution. If it were a public school the tuition wouldn't be as ridiculously high as it is.

Avatar image for lostrib
#33 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@PannicAtack said:

@airshocker: Ran a search for "private property." This is the first thing that comes up

[quote=ACLU]Can I protest on private property?

As a rule, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to engage in free-speech activities on private property unless you own or lease the property, or the owner has given you permission to use the property for speech. But you may canvass door-to-door in residential areas, unless the homeowner has put up a "no solicitors" sign.[/quote]

And the school isn't considered private property. It's considered public property.

Dartmouth is a private institution

Avatar image for airshocker
#34 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights. It would be just like saying slavery is allowed because this is private property. It doesn't work that way and you guys know that.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#35 Edited by Serraph105 (31774 posts) -

@airshocker: I can still think of a number of preemptive fixes for her current situation. Make it so only her friends can read her social media, have her social media say she is now attending a different college, or you know just conceal a gun with the safety on. My god would it be so difficult to set up a situation where you conceal your weapon and not brag/tell people you are currently doing so?

Hell she might even ask again for the exception should the guy get out of jail. Currently though I can't see a logical reason for the college to make an exception when the guy in question actively can't leave the room he's in much less the state.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#36 Edited by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights. It would be just like saying slavery is allowed because this is private property. It doesn't work that way and you guys know that.

I quoted back to you from the link you gave me, you know. If you think the ACLU is wrong, you can take it up with them.

Avatar image for airshocker
#37 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights. It would be just like saying slavery is allowed because this is private property. It doesn't work that way and you guys know that.

I quoted back to you from the link you gave me, you know. If you think the ACLU is wrong, you can take it up with them.

You can quote back whatever you want. Doesn't change what I just said.

Avatar image for dave123321
#38 Edited by dave123321 (35329 posts) -

Aljosa stop pretending to be an idiot

Avatar image for airshocker
#39 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@Serraph105 said:

@airshocker: I can still think of a number of preemptive fixes for her current situation. Make it so only her friends can read her social media, have her social media say she is now attending a different college, or you know just conceal a gun with the safety on. My god would it be so difficult to set up a situation where you conceal your weapon and not brag/tell people you are currently doing so?

Hell she might even ask again for the exception should the guy get out of jail. Currently though I can't see a logical reason for the college to make an exception when the guy in question actively can't leave the room he's in much less the state.

She is legally NOT allowed to conceal a weapon because of the college's rules.

Why should she have to wait? What if she doesn't find out until it's too late?

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#40 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29945 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Aljosa stop pretending to be an idiot

Sorry dave :<

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#41 Edited by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
@airshocker said:
@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights. It would be just like saying slavery is allowed because this is private property. It doesn't work that way and you guys know that.

I quoted back to you from the link you gave me, you know. If you think the ACLU is wrong, you can take it up with them.

You can quote back whatever you want. Doesn't change what I just said.

And nothing you say changes the reality as to how subjects like Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms apply to private institutions.

A private institution has the right to disallow guns from their property, just as they have the right to, for example, have mandatory school uniforms. A fallacious comparison to slavery is not going to get you anywhere.

If you think Dartmouth should allow guns on their campus as a matter of allowing self-defense, then go right ahead. But at least get your facts straight (don't claim that Ivy League is public, don't post links that defeat your argument), and don't try to frame this as an argument about gun control, because it fucking isn't.

Avatar image for lostrib
#42 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights.

It's their property, of course they can say you can't bring guns on it.

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#43 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

I side with the girl on this issue.

Avatar image for airshocker
#44 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@PannicAtack said:

@airshocker said:
@PannicAtack said:
@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights. It would be just like saying slavery is allowed because this is private property. It doesn't work that way and you guys know that.

I quoted back to you from the link you gave me, you know. If you think the ACLU is wrong, you can take it up with them.

You can quote back whatever you want. Doesn't change what I just said.

And nothing you say changes the reality as to how subjects like Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms apply to private institutions.

A private institution has the right to disallow guns from their property, just as they have the right to, for example, have mandatory school uniforms. A fallacious comparison to slavery is not going to get you anywhere.

It's not fallacious. The college is still required to follow the constitution. If they're not allowed to enact slavery just because it's private property, they're not allowed to restrict gun rights or freedom of speech.

Avatar image for airshocker
#45 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights.

It's their property, of course they can say you can't bring guns on it.

Of course they can say whatever they want. My point is that I don't think they should be allowed to limit anybody's constitutional rights. While that's only been proven in some places with regards to the first amendment, I think eventually it's going to be shown that they can't limit any rights.

Avatar image for lostrib
#46 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@PannicAtack said:

@airshocker said:

You can quote back whatever you want. Doesn't change what I just said.

And nothing you say changes the reality as to how subjects like Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms apply to private institutions.

A private institution has the right to disallow guns from their property, just as they have the right to, for example, have mandatory school uniforms. A fallacious comparison to slavery is not going to get you anywhere.

It's not fallacious. The college is still required to follow the constitution. If they're not allowed to enact slavery just because it's private property, they're not allowed to restrict gun rights or freedom of speech.

Except they can. Just like many businesses do not allow people to carry weapons on the premises.

And it might not just be institutional regulations, but rather state law

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#47 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@lostrib said:

@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights.

It's their property, of course they can say you can't bring guns on it.

Of course they can say whatever they want. My point is that I don't think they should be allowed to limit anybody's constitutional rights. While that's only been proven in some places with regards to the first amendment, I think eventually it's going to be shown that they can't limit any rights.

Technically they aren't limiting any rights. What they're actually doing is exercising their right to remove someone from their property. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree with a person's right to remove someone from their own property.

Avatar image for lostrib
#48 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@lostrib said:

@airshocker said:

Truth be told, it doesn't actually matter if it's public or private property. You're still not allowed to limit someone's rights.

It's their property, of course they can say you can't bring guns on it.

Of course they can say whatever they want. My point is that I don't think they should be allowed to limit anybody's constitutional rights. While that's only been proven in some places with regards to the first amendment, I think eventually it's going to be shown that they can't limit any rights.

It's my private property, I can tell you that you cannot bring a gun on my property. And if you do so, then I will have you removed.

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
#50 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (9113 posts) -

I agree with the college. They could make an exception, but then they'll have to inform all faculty of the exception and hope they remember and/or check their mailboxes. Even if that gets passed, someone else may get an idea and bring a firearm on campus. Faculty will run into difficulty discerning who is and is not authorized to hold a firearm. Best to avoid the situation and keep them off campus altogether.

The college should offer to have a security guard escort her on campus for a period of time and detain the stalker, should he be caught.