Here we go again...

[Asher]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

It means law-abiding, responsible citizens can be penalized/expelled for protecting themselves on public property under the United States Constitution.

I'm not sure you could make the case that someone is law-abiding if they carry a gun in violation of a local law.

This must be some kind of republican mind game you are playing with yourself.

Do you believe people should be able to bring guns on airplanes as well?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure you could make the case that someone is law-abiding if they carry a gun in violation of a local law.

So Rosa Parks was a criminal?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So Rosa Parks was a criminal?

If she broke a law, by definition she is not law-abiding.

Excuse me while I blow your mind with my common sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

If she broke a law, by definition she is not law-abiding.

Thank you. One should not abide laws which are unconstitutional.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Thank you. One should not abide laws which are unconstitutional.

So one should bring a gun on an airplane...

I like how you've completely missed the point I was making. Someone who breaks the law is simply not law-abiding, no matter what their intentions may be. It's a simple concept, one you clearly struggle with.

If the law is unconstitutional, there are various avenues to have that ruling made. Violating the law is never an answer to a law-abiding citizen.

[Ben Kenobi]

So one should bring a gun on an airplane...

How is carving out a 'gun free zone' on a public campus the same as taking a gun on an airplane? I'm sorry. Your analogy fails.

I like how you've completely missed the point I was making. Someone who breaks the law is simply not law-abiding, no matter what their intentions may be.

It's bad to obey unjust laws. I'm sure you agree with me here. Banning guns in the US is unconstitutional because people have the right to protect themselves with firearms, and that right should not be abrogated by universities which think they know better.

If the law is unconstitutional, there are various avenues to have that ruling made. Violating the law is never an answer to a law-abiding citizen.

Yes, it is and should be. Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus, because it was an unjust and unconstitutional law that she was asked to follow. The same is here with the 'gun free zones' on campus. They are unconstitutional. One should abide by just laws, but not by unjust ones.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is carving out a 'gun free zone' on a public campus the same as taking a gun on an airplane? I'm sorry. Your analogy fails.

Is an airplane not a gun free zone?

It's bad to obey unjust laws. I'm sure you agree with me here.

Laws are laws are laws. It's not up to individual citizens to determine their constitutional status.

For instance, I believe banning gay marriage is unconstitutional but I can't get married in the US.

You are not an expert in constitutional law. I dare you to bring guns everywhere just because you feel it to be constitutional. Good luck with that.

One should abide by just laws, but not by unjust ones.

What if I deemed murdering hearing-impaired mentally retarded born-again Christians to be just?

[Ben Kenobi]

Laws are laws are laws. It's not up to individual citizens to determine their constitutional status.

And an unjust law has no force on the citizens. How can a citizen follow two laws, the constitution, and a law which violates the constitution? Either they elevate one or lower the other. If the constitution is the highest law of the land, then the citizen is obliged to follow the higher law and not the lower one. By abiding by an unjust law, one is saying that the lower law is the higher, and the higher is the lower.

For instance, I believe banning gay marriage is unconstitutional but I can't get married in the US.

Are you a US citizen? I don't see how your freedoms are in any way impaired.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Are you a US citizen? I don't see how your freedoms are in any way impaired.

yes.

How is my freedom not impaired in the US if I can marry my partner of 5 years in Canada, but not in the US?

As I said, the banning of gay marriage in the US is something I view as unconstitutional. Most gays feel this way. So you are encouraging gays to get married, as it's an unjust banning. Nice work, Ben.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Banning guns in the US is unconstitutional because people have the right to protect themselves with firearms

According to the latest Supreme Court decision, Justice Scalia says it is not unconstitutional to ban guns from certain areas.

And unjust does NOT equal unconstitutional. If you want to call the law unjust... come up with something else.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is my freedom not impaired in the US if I can marry my partner of 5 years in Canada, but not in the US?

How is your freedom impaired if you live in Canada, and choose not to get married? No one's holding you back here Asher, yet you've not chosen to get married for whatever reasons.

As I said, the banning of gay marriage in the US is something I view as unconstitutional.

That and a buck fifty will get me a frosty at Wendys.

So you are encouraging gays to get married, as it's an unjust banning. Nice work, Ben.

Unlike this law, a ban on gay marriage is constitutional. By your own reasoning, and mine, gay men ought to respect the constitution. As you said there are legal channels they can use to get the law changed such as getting 2/3rds of the states to approve of a constitutional amendment.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to the latest Supreme Court decision, Justice Scalia says it is not unconstitutional to ban guns from certain areas.

Which areas Imran? You are a lawyer what did Scalia actually say? If you are going to refer to Scalia, you should actually quote his ruling in the recent decision.

I don't see how blanket 'gun free zones' around campuses are protected for public universities. Scalia listed off several, none of which approve of the massive 'bubbles' that campuses try to enforce. Those are unconstitutional.

Students should not be forced to choose between their civil liberties and obtaining an education.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is your freedom impaired if you live in Canada, and choose not to get married? No one's holding you back here Asher, yet you've not chosen to get married for whatever reasons.

I'm lucky in that I'm a Canadian citizen. Not all Americans can say that. You are avoiding the issue.

It's an "unjust" and "unconstitutional" law. One you are encouraging gays and their supporters ignore as such, and opening the door to gay marriage all across the USA.

Unlike this law, a ban on gay marriage is constitutional.

We obviously disagree. On both accounts.

Which is precisely why it's not up to individual citizens to interpret the constitutionality of a law and choose whether to obey it or not.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


students should not be forced to choose between their safety and obtaining an education.

*fixed

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm lucky in that I'm a Canadian citizen. Not all Americans can say that. You are avoiding the issue.

How are your freedoms impaired? You are not an American citizen. You are perfectly free to marry whomever you want here, and you have chosen to evade my question.

It's an "unjust" and "unconstitutional" law.

Only in your own mind.

One you are encouraging gays and their supporters ignore.

If they consider it unjust they can do whatever they want, in my opinion. If they want to celebrate together, they should be able to do so. I see no reason why gay people shouldn't be able to do that together if that's what they want. If they want to have "marriage celebrations" and consider themselves "married" so be it. Go ahead and do it.

Which is precisely why it's not up to individual citizens to interpret the constitutionality of a law and choose whether to obey it or not.

The trouble is that the law in the US is constitutional, not because of what I believe, but because of what the justices in the US have ruled. Marraige between a man and a woman is constitutional, and to overturn that will require a constitutional amendment.

I'm sorry asher, it's not my opinion, which is meaningless.