Students face being expelled for defending their own lives

[MikeBjerum]

I am along with TAB on the fact that if you agree to the rules you are wrong to break them.  However, when he starts giving all the reasons the rules and laws should restrict our freedoms I am done with it.  What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand.  If I want to hear all the reasons to regulate a right or eliminate a protection I will turn on Piers Morgan.

[TAB]

THere is a diffrence between a private group and the gov.

[MikeBjerum]

True, but do you believe in our basic human rights or not?  Your statement is right out of the Brady Handbook!

[kmitch200]

like it or not liabilty is a big deal in this world.   the bigger the pockets the bigger the risk.  A flesh wound can cost 10s of thousands  how many of you can pay that?  Not many,

Before we discuss you talking out of your hat again, WTF what/who are you replying to?  Did this just pop into your noggin?

Do you think as grown adults living and working in the real world we don't know about liability and how much it can cost?

[TAB]

most people have no clue how much liabilty costs.(or any costs in business)   example, how much does your employer pay for your workmens comp? 

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

TAB,

You would be amazed about what people know about liability exposure and insurance.  Most adults carry at least one liability policy - auto or home.

The bigger question is if it is right for somebody to restrict basic human rights and for you to promote it over ambulance chasing attorneys, and that is all the issue over inflated liability costs is anyway.  Pres. Reagan tried to address this as a part of controlling health costs - Multi-million dollar settlements for a 90 year old who falls, or the millions for a staph infection where a person has two months off a $25k per year job.

My argument with you all along here, and other times this has come up, is that you promote restricting basic human rights in the name of cost, liability, and political correctness/relations.  If you want to restrict me in your own home that is your right, but when you invite me to spend money at your place of business you open yourself up to not restricting my basic human rights.  That is the basis behind all Civil Rights court rulings and legislation.

[TAB]

here is my deal, if you have a choice to be there( i am not talking about a home you rent, but if its in the middle of a college campus, you have to fallow the rules of the campus)  they have the right to restrict what comes on thier property.

[PegLeg45]

here is my deal, if you have a choice to be there( i am not talking about a home you rent, but if its in the middle of a college campus, you have to fallow the rules of the campus)  they have the right to restrict what comes on thier property.

They shouldn't if it is not a private school entity..... and those rules violate my rights under the Constitution.

If it is a public, state, or school that takes federal money, then it should be regulated by the 2nd Amendment.

Liability is a separate issue. You have liability with any free choice in life.

 

[MikeBjerum]

Peg,

Gonzanga is a Catholic school.  However, even as a private school they must deal with the civil rights issue.  I understand and support that these students signed on for what they got.  However, I do not support TAB's stance that a public entity or private business can infringe on civil rights.  Look at what religious organizations and even private businesses are facing over the health care bills and the conflicts with their religious beliefs.  They are being told that civil rights rule.  This is where TAB and I part ways, and I do not appreciate is being so well versed in the Brady and Bloomberg speak in support of what happened or in reasons to ban our rights.

[PegLeg45]

Just to clarify my stance on the SD/CCW anywhere issue (which I have stated several times over the years):
    Private property without public access should be at the discretion of the owner of the property.
    If the public has access to a property, at any time, then the Constitutional right to bear arms should be allowed.