|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NV: More guns, less crime – or more guns, more crime?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Making both local and national news is a proposal by Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore, R-Las Vegas, to overturn college authorities’ right to prohibit carrying of concealed firearms on campuses.
It seems as though liberals find themselves on the horns of a dilemma in opposing her campus carry bill while simultaneously bewailing what they claim is an increase in sexual violence on college campuses.
Fiore said: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm I wonder how many men will want to assault them … the sexual assaults will go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”
|
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/26/2015)
|
My major problem with this storyline is its statement of "college authorities "right". They have no more "right" than any other on campus, student or faculty. They may - upon judicial review - have the "power" to regulate on-campus CCW.
I'm increasingly concerned with the casual and vacuous misuse of "rights", when context and law define those actions as "powers" granted/ceded to positions/individuals by citizens. No LEO has any "rights" exceeding those of any citizen. He is granted - by citizens - well-defined "powers" enabling them to perform their assigned duties. No political figure, regardless of his position, has more "rights" than any citizen. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
