Is it Matajan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So ummmm....it's well known that Matajan had issues with following girls on this messageboard?!?!? I found out on FB....He mentioned that he had issues with girls finding him creepy, and a social worker type said she had experianced a couple of Aspie type guys not understanding that their interest in certain girls was REALLY scary and had gone over the border to stalking...
Regarding the woman.....If she feels threatened enough to have to carry a gun, ARREST the stalker and put him in jail or a pyschatric ward.....Problem solved!
 
Steinhauer said:
prior to the first push - there were no laws permitting carry on campus - now there are.
Click to expand...
actually that's incorrect.

Steinhauer said:
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.
Click to expand...
actually no that's also incorrect. by entering my private property - you agreed to void your rights. if you do not like it - then do not enter my private property. by asserting your rights ILLEGALLY onto my property would land you in either jail or pine box. If you were killed on my property - it's probably because you were trespassing on my property and you ignored my "Trespasser will be shot on sight without warning" sign :)

Steinhauer said:
That is why I can carry in National Parks now (and other government entities as well).
Click to expand...
actually no that's incorrect. that's not why you can carry in national parks now. you can now carry in national parks because GWB signed the law allowing you to do so.

other government entities? such as.....?

Steinhauer said:
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.
Click to expand...
irrelevant.
 
Steinhauer said:
It doesn't matter if they are private or public, they are still liable for the personal safety of their students.
Click to expand...
correct.... to a certain degree....

Steinhauer said:
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?
Click to expand...
affirmative action? irrelevant.

Steinhauer said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
incorrect. incorrect. incorrect. thanks god you're not a lawyer. I can't imagine how many innocent people would be in jail.
 
Jiro said:
actually that's incorrect.


actually no that's also incorrect.


actually no that's incorrect. that's not why you can carry in national parks now. you can now carry in national parks because GWB signed the law allowing you to do so.

check your facts there ... it wasn't GWB - the law was passed in 2009 - Obama signed it - it was The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009

irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Hmmm ... that's all you have?


The information, in its entirety, has all been correct.


So .... Obama was pro-gun before he was against it?
 
Jiro said:
correct.... to a certain degree....


affirmative action? irrelevant.


incorrect. incorrect. incorrect. thanks god you're not a lawyer. I can't imagine how many innocent people would be in jail.
Click to expand...


There would be 0 innocent people in jail - but then again, I check my facts before spouting off nonsense. LOL
 
Steinhauer said:
We are talking about a college campus servicing the public, not Jiro's apartment.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you were talking about his property as well.

If I were to be killed onyour 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.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

Ok, why doesn't happen today? Why many college don't allow to carry guns, yet they receive a lot of federal funding?

Target no longer allow customers to carry guns in their store, but they received corporate welfare aka tax break from federal and state.
 
deafdyke said:
So ummmm....it's well known that Matajan had issues with following girls on this messageboard?!?!? I found out on FB....He mentioned that he had issues with girls finding him creepy, and a social worker type said she had experianced a couple of Aspie type guys not understanding that their interest in certain girls was REALLY scary and had gone over the border to stalking...
Regarding the woman.....If she feels threatened enough to have to carry a gun, ARREST the stalker and put him in jail or a pyschatric ward.....Problem solved!
Click to expand...

the stalker is already in jail.
 
Jiro said:
Bush Admin Overturns Ban On Firearms In National Parks

:cool2:
Click to expand...

As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park.
Click to expand...

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, was enacted May 22, 2009 and will become effective February 22, 2010. Section 512 of this law; Protecting Americans from Violent Crimes, supersedes the uniform treatment of firearm possession in the national park system outside Alaska under the regulations found at 36 C.F.R. 2.4.
Click to expand...

Laws & Policies - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)


Credit CARD Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or Credit CARD Act of 2009 is a federal statute passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009
Click to expand...


:cool2:
 
Jiro said:
the stalker is already in jail.
Click to expand...

And you know this because the student said it in her letter to Dartmouth - what you are neglecting to mention is that she lives in fear of him being released on bail (as it has happened before) and that he will stalk her to the Dartmouth Campus, as the last time he was released, he went to her house.
 
Steinhauer said:
And you know this because the student said it in her letter to Dartmouth - what you are neglecting to mention is that she lives in fear of him being released on bail (as it has happened before) and that he will stalk her to the Dartmouth Campus, as the last time he was released, he went to her house.
Click to expand...

yes she did say that. and she is free to get a bodyguard.... or transfer to Harvard University which is a gated community.
 
Steinhauer said:
Just correcting your mistake that "this was all Bush's fault"
Click to expand...

it... began..... with.... GWB.... overturning.... federal...... ban.... on.... firearms....in..... national..... parks.... :)

it went into effect about a month before Obama took office.

Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns
The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.
Click to expand...

Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks. We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
Click to expand...
 
From OP's first link;

Many colleges across the country have banned guns on campus to prevent mass shootings and accidental shootings by irresponsible or inebriated students
Click to expand...
There you go.
 
CrazyPaul said:
From OP's first link;

There you go.
Click to expand...

yeah, that worked so well at Virginia Tech didn't it? :cool2:

And all that violent crime in the gun free safety zones around large universities - it sure deterred that didn't it? :cool2:
 
This thread is pointless because Congress CANNOT order colleges to allow students to carry their guns there.
 
CrazyPaul said:
This thread is pointless because Congress CANNOT order colleges to allow students to carry their guns there.
Click to expand...

No one is asking Congress to order students to carry guns .. where are you gleaning that info from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top