Is it Matajan?

[Steinhauer]

there was another attempted abduction/rape/attack or whatever a couple of days ago on a 19 year old who was riding her bike along the Silver Comet Trail. The attacker tried to get her with a taser, except he missed and she got away. The prongs hit her helmet.

(p.s. it used to be illegal to carry a gun on the Silver Comet Trail until 8 years ago when a woman was murdered there - gun rights activists pushed to make it legal).

 

[Jiro]

She should take the school up on its word. Anytime she goes from point A to point B, she should ask for a police escort. If the school is going to make it illegal for her to have any means of self protection, then they need to step up and provide her with personal protection.

if she is not happy with the protection and security offered by Harvard University (which is pretty good enough for many students)... she is free to hire a private bodyguard like many Harvard students do. Do you seriously think it is safe for her to carry a gun for her own protection in Harvard University? I cannot image the repercussion if she panic-shot in public. I am fearful of an armed frightened person who keeps looking behind one's shoulder than a person carrying CCW for nothing else but own protection. A frightened person with a gun is a ticking bomb in a public space.

You're forgetting that this is Harvard University we're talking about. It's full of students who are high-profile, privileged, well-connected, and/or celebrity.

Princeton is a different story because it's open space. Anybody can freely walk around the campuses. Harvard - you can't.

 

[Jiro]

She should look into getting a taser and/or pepper spray if she's not allowed to carry a gun. Or if he's a big, scary dude, one of these:

Amazon.com: Police Force 10,000,000 Tactical Stun Baton Flashlight: Everything Else

Wirelessly posted (Nexus 5)



Some places ban or restrict those, too.

yep. tazer and pepper spray are illegal in NYC. pretty much most of self-defense weapons are illegal in NYC. such concept eludes me....

 

[Jiro]

Not even a tour!?

you'll have to sign up for it.

 

[Foxrac]

you'll have to sign up for it.

Oh really, you didn't want campus tour and you were trying to hook up with hot chick at Ivy League like Matajan!

 

[Jiro]

Oh really, you didn't want campus tour and you were trying to hook up with hot chick at Ivy League like Matajan!

already did....

 

[Steinhauer]

if she is not happy with the protection and security offered by Harvard University (which is pretty good enough for many students)... she is free to hire a private bodyguard like many Harvard students do. Do you seriously think it is safe for her to carry a gun for her own protection in Harvard University? I cannot image the repercussion if she panic-shot in public. I am fearful of an armed frightened person who keeps looking behind one's shoulder than a person carrying CCW for nothing else but own protection. A frightened person with a gun is a ticking bomb in a public space.

You're forgetting that this is Harvard University we're talking about. It's full of students who are high-profile, privileged, well-connected, and/or celebrity.

Princeton is a different story because it's open space. Anybody can freely walk around the campuses. Harvard - you can't.

the only person who knows her frame of mind - is her. She has already provided facts that she is being stalked - so this is not an act of paranoia fear - it is a very real threat. She should never have her rights to protect herself ever, ever stripped away from her. If she wants to ensure her own personal safety, that is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

If the 'geniuses' who make school policy cannot see the logic in that - then by all means, she should go to another school. There are plenty of gun friendly Universities for her to choose from. She should go to one that doesn't complain when they are asked to protect their students - I think they are just trying to protect their reputation and "elite status"

 

[Steinhauer]

Oh really, you didn't want campus tour and you were trying to hook up with hot chick at Ivy League like Matajan!

uh-oh .. the secret is out lol

 

[Jiro]

the only person who knows her frame of mind - is her. She has already provided facts that she is being stalked - so this is not an act of paranoia fear - it is a very real threat.

and because of that... she is now paranoid and fearful because she has to keep checking behind her shoulder for a stalker - anywhere, anytime.

her frame of mind is fragile and dangerous for public well-being especially when one is armed.

She should never have her rights to protect herself ever, ever stripped away from her. If she wants to ensure her own personal safety, that is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

her rights was never stripped away. it is simply not recognized on private property and she is free to choose any other campus that allows her to carry a piece. other people's rights to live should never ever be stripped away by her 2nd amendment on college campuses.

If the 'geniuses' who make school policy cannot see the logic in that - then by all means, she should go to another school. there are plenty of gun friendly Universities for her to choose from.

any genius knows 2nd Amendment does not apply to private property.

I'm disturbed by people who aggressively and ignorantly assert their rights as self-entitlement especially on private property. such mindset is dangerous and delusional akin to a paranoid paramilitary whose agenda is to overthrow the government.

since she feels not safe in Dartmouth University... I would recommend her to transfer to Harvard University - a gated college campus. she would be plenty safe enough in Harvard University than any other campus because most campuses are open-space with basic security.

 

[Steinhauer]

Apparently you have never had the unfortunate incident of having been stalked by a psychopath. The difference between "paranoia" and legitimate fear, is a paranoid person thinks imaginary people are stalking them - in this student's situation - she is actually being stalked by someone with ill intentions - paranoia isn't exactly the right word to use. For her to do the responsible thing - part of doing the responsible thing is realizing that her own personal safety is her own personal responsibility - why would anyone tell her she cannot do so?

Your "paranoid" argument doesn't really mesh with what is actually happening to this young woman.

maybe you think all young women are paranoid and don't need firearms?

Have you ever thought maybe that the reason why people assert their rights on private property is because criminals with ill intent do not respect those boundaries? That these gun free zones are actually an invisible barrier to make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that only law abiding citizens will disarm in them?

Perhaps you would be much happier if restaurants were segregated? You know - those practicing their civil rights (i.e. 2nd Amendment) should sit in a designated corner and only use a designated restroom so you can feel free from them?

 

[Jiro]

Apparently you have never had the unfortunate incident of having been stalked by a psychopath. The difference between "paranoia" and legitimate fear, is a paranoid person thinks imaginary people are stalking them - in this student's situation - she is actually being stalked by someone with ill intentions - paranoia isn't exactly the right word to use. For her to do the responsible thing - part of doing the responsible thing is realizing that her own personal safety is her own personal responsibility - why would anyone tell her she cannot do so?

why should she tell a school to do what she wants?

Your "paranoid" argument doesn't really mesh with what is actually happening to this young woman.

we both know you are not qualified in making such statement.

maybe you think all young women are paranoid and don't need firearms?

I believe all young women should be able to protect themselves but they should not demand others to accommodate them however they please.

Have you ever thought maybe that the reason why people assert their rights on private property is because criminals with ill intent do not respect those boundaries? That these gun free zones are actually an invisible barrier to make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that only law abiding citizens will disarm in them?

simple - go somewhere else where you would feel safe. she should not demand everybody to accommodate her. have you ever thought of that? she should transfer to Harvard University... or to a state with strong stalking law.

 

[Steinhauer]

Why should anyone have to ask to practice a fundamental human right?

Why should anyone be convicted of a felony for practicing a fundamental human right?

Because the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the 2nd Amendment is a very basic and fundamental human right. The school does not have the right to tell this student if she has the right to protect herself or not. Their policy is denying her of a basic and fundamental human right.

She should transfer.

(preferably to a University that respects her rights and does nothing to infringe on them)

 

[Jiro]

Why should anyone have to ask to practice a fundamental human right?

Why should anyone be convicted of a felony for practicing a fundamental human right?

Because the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the 2nd Amendment is a very basic and fundamental human right.

that would be incorrect. that's not what SCOTUS has ruled.

The school does not have the right to tell this student if she has the right to protect herself or not. Their policy is denying her of a basic and fundamental human right.

actually they do.

She should transfer.

(preferably to a University that respects her rights and does nothing to infringe on them)

actually she would still feel less safe even with gun but that's her choice. it is very likely that she will end up in jail for illegal carry.

 

[Steinhauer]

actually they do.

Actually, no, they do not.

Ask the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin .... that was just from the first wave of this push ...

If a university cannot provide 24/7 security for one of their students, they need to allow the student the ability to protect themselves. Otherwise, more liability lawsuits are going to be filed. (and "we" are winning the war). And Georgia has no law prohibiting the carry on campus - the wording in HB 60 made that very clear.

 

[Jiro]

Actually, no, they do not.

actually they do. I can tell you that your gun is not welcome on my property and you are free not to come to my property. asserting your 2nd amendment right on my property will land you in either jail or pine box.

so you're quibbling around with "actually no they do not"... then how come airports and government properties such as courthouse or FBI Building can prohibit firearms? or business establishments with legal "No Firearm" signs?

Ask the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin .... that was just from the first wave of this push ...

cool. good for them.

If a university cannot provide 24/7 security for one of their students, they need to allow the student the ability to protect themselves.

cool. *shrug*

if a student is not satisfied with the level of security as provided for him/her... he/she is free to purchase additional security.

Otherwise, more liability lawsuits are going to be filed. (and "we" are winning the war).

that would be incorrect. 9 out of 50 states? that's hardly a win. liability lawsuits? LOL. I'm not even going to touch this.

And Georgia has no law prohibiting the carry on campus - the wording in HB 60 made that very clear.

actually that's misleading. Georgia does not have law prohibiting firearms on campus but campus can prohibit firearms. HB 60 has made it clear that gun carriers would be protected from arrest on no-firearm zone when leaving their guns in their cars. I corrected you this before.

 

[Steinhauer]

actually they do. I can tell you that your gun is not welcome on my property and you are free not to come to my property. asserting your 2nd amendment right on my property will land you in either jail or pine box.

so you're quibbling around with "actually no they do not"... then how come airports and government properties such as courthouse or FBI Building can prohibit firearms? or business establishments with legal "No Firearm" signs?


cool. good for them.


cool. *shrug*

if a student is not satisfied with the level of security as provided for him/her... he/she is free to purchase additional security.


that would be incorrect.

prior to the first push - there were no laws permitting carry on campus - now there are.

If I were to be killed on your property, and you provided me with no security, or sporadic security, you would be held liable for my death as it happened on your property. This could even be argued as negligence, if it was discovered that you, as property owner, prohibited me from having any tools at my disposal that could have prevented my demise. Ask any contractor working on your home ... if you purposefully did not allow certain safety precautionary measures, and someone got killed on your property, you are liable.

That is why I can carry in National Parks now (and other government entities as well).

Rather than arguing against the private ownership of a tool (which is what you are doing) you really should be looking at the intent of individuals who choose to rob, maim, rape, murder and stalk their victims. These crimes are alarmingly high in areas where these self defense tools are purposefully not allowed.

It is the intent, not the tool.

 

[Foxrac]

Why should anyone have to ask to practice a fundamental human right?

Why should anyone be convicted of a felony for practicing a fundamental human right?

Because the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that the 2nd Amendment is a very basic and fundamental human right. The school does not have the right to tell this student if she has the right to protect herself or not. Their policy is denying her of a basic and fundamental human right.

She should transfer.

(preferably to a University that respects her rights and does nothing to infringe on them)

FYI, Dartmouth is private university so they can ban guns like many private businesses, that's not same as public colleges that operated by states.

 

[Steinhauer]

FYI, Dartmouth is private university so they can ban guns like many private businesses, that's not same as public colleges that operated by states.

It doesn't matter if they are private or public, they are still liable for the personal safety of their students.

There are Federal Laws in place for what private property owners can and cannot do. Can Dartmouth only accept white males? Can they exclude Latinos?

Of course not, because that is a violation of basic civil rights .... It is a violation of Federal Law .. if they accept Federal money, they must adhere to Federal Law.

It is a fundamental human right to self defense ...

 

[CrazyPaul]

prior to the first push - there were no laws permitting carry on campus - now there are.

If I were to be killed on your property, and you provided me with no security, or sporadic security, you would be held liable for my death as it happened on your property. This could even be argued as negligence, if it was discovered that you, as property owner, prohibited me from having any tools at my disposal that could have prevented my demise. Ask any contractor working on your home ... if you purposefully did not allow certain safety precautionary measures, and someone got killed on your property, you are liable.

That is why I can carry in National Parks now (and other government entities as well).

Rather than arguing against the private ownership of a tool (which is what you are doing) you really should be looking at the intent of individuals who choose to rob, maim, rape, murder and stalk their victims. These crimes are alarmingly high in areas where these self defense tools are purposefully not allowed.

It is the intent, not the tool.

Seriously? You don't get what Jiro said. If he says no to your gun, then you can leave if you want to. Therefore it's not his fault if you didn't leave his property without your poor gun.

 

[Steinhauer]

Seriously? You don't get what Jiro said. If he says no to your gun, then you can leave if you want to. Therefore it's not his fault if you didn't leave his property without your poor gun.

We are talking about a college campus servicing the public, not Jiro's apartment.