[quote]pushharder wrote:
Big, fooking deal about “voluntary.” Move on, your argument is flawed.[/quote]
Voluntary affiliation. When you matriculate–when you sign all the papers–you agree to surrender some of your rights. The Second happens to be one of them in many cases. Ohhhhh well. Better watch out for Hitler’s rise.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Big, fooking deal about “voluntary.” Move on, your argument is flawed.[/quote]
Voluntary affiliation. When you matriculate–when you sign all the papers–you agree to surrender some of your rights. The Second happens to be one of them in many cases. Ohhhhh well. Better watch out for Hitler’s rise.[/quote]
I don’t agree that gun rights should be taken on campuses, but your point here is correct. It’s much like the fact that Americans have fourth amendment rights but often choose to voluntarily surrender them when asked to.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I daresay they shouldn’t be. Put that in your pipe and smoke it
[/quote]
Congratulations, no more exams.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pfizer shouldn’t be getting government funding. Pfizer should be minding its own private business.
[/quote]
“The world should be just like I want it to be! It’s not fair.”
It is getting public funding. What now?
Should it, or should it not be forced to respect the Second Amendment?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…These aren’t gun control laws. They are policies…
[/quote]
Semantics.
[/quote]
Nope.
Not semantics.
A law affects us all. The policy of a voluntary institution affects only the people who want to voluntarily affiliate themselves with it.
Or is Pfizer’s policy against guns on its grounds equally as redolent of the Holocaust in your mind?
Again, this is cheap, daytime melodrama. It works when its slapped across some picture and passed around Facebook. It belongs nowhere near serious discussion.
[/quote]
We’re not talking about Pfizer. We’re on common ground in the case of Pfizer.
I’ll repeat that a public university is in the public square. [/quote]
This doesn’t mean anything. You keep saying it but it doesn’t mean anything. Where is the written down? What law makes this so? Or is it just–“some guy in Montana says that public universities are in the public square?”
You have to argue by more than assertion.
[/quote]
This doesn’t mean anything. You keep saying it but it doesn’t mean anything. Where is it written down? What law makes this so? Is it just, "Some guy in CT says public universities are really private institutions?
How does a public university that has public infrastructure, i.e.,streets, water and wastewater systems, law enforcement, funding, access, etc. – in other words EVERY SINGLE SIMILARITY of any other public venue – magically become a private institution?
You have to argue by more than assertion.
[/quote]
This is pretty stupid. You’re the one making the claim, not me. You say that public universities are “part of the public square.” Back it up. According to whom? By what law? How? Why?
If you make a claim, prove it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Big, fooking deal about “voluntary.” Move on, your argument is flawed.[/quote]
Voluntary affiliation. When you matriculate–when you sign all the papers–you agree to surrender some of your rights. The Second happens to be one of them in many cases. Ohhhhh well. Better watch out for Hitler’s rise.[/quote]
I didn’t voluntary affiliate. I didn’t matriculate. I didn’t sign any papers. I’m not a student at the U of Montana. I just went looking for my dog who ran away and someone told me they saw him on the campus next to the cottonwood grove over by the football stadium. Why must I disarm?[/quote]
For the same reason that you must disarm if your dog escapes onto Pfizer’s grounds. Or into a courtroom. Because the people who run it made the rule that you have to.
This conversation illustrates the problems caused when government is allowed to involve itself in non-government functions. We have allowed government to become so intermingled with private institutions that it is hard to say where the rights of one begin and the other’s end.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have given many examples of why a public university open at all times to the public is a public place. You are playing the fool by claiming otherwise. Don’t you ever hypocritically taunt Max again; you have lost this debate and you’ve gone down swinging but you ARE down. And you’re staying down. You’re practically unconscious and you, me and everyone in the peanut gallery knows it. Shucks, even your mom knows it.[/quote]
No no no no no. First of all, that shit with max was about a fact. A provable fact. Like the kind of thing that you google and then you’re done. So no.
So–a public university is part of the public square because it receives state subsidies. That’s what you’re going with? It gets state money?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Already did. Several times. Several places.
[/quote]
No you didn’t.
What is the maxim here?
An institution whose budget is comprised of some amount of state subsidy may not make rules contradictory to the Bill of Rights?
Is that what you’re going with?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have given many examples of why a public university open at all times to the public is a public place. You are playing the fool by claiming otherwise. Don’t you ever hypocritically taunt Max again; you have lost this debate and you’ve gone down swinging but you ARE down. And you’re staying down. You’re practically unconscious and you, me and everyone in the peanut gallery knows it. Shucks, even your mom knows it.[/quote]
By the way, nobody’s going to either win or lose until you choose an actual position and then defend it. “I say public square” is not a position. What is the principle.
And can a public university stop you from walking into a room wherein an exam is being administered? Or into any classroom?
And can a public university punish a student for exercising the right to free speech under any circumstances, provided that that speech is not intended to incite imminent lawless action?
If you think this is a winner/loser situation we’ve got going on here, you need to have another look over this thread. Every single salient point anybody has made against you has been simply ignored. Until you account for the First Amendment question in this post and produce an actual principled, logically-consistent and universally-applicable argument, don’t you even daydream about declaring a draw. And by the way, the burden of proof rests with the guy claiming to have infallible knowledge of some sort of maxim which prevents SUNY Buffalo from being able to keep kids from putting guns under their beds.