Posted on 02/04/2006 7:15:54 PM PST by SJackson
And why is that? Why should a college campus be a place you can not take a gun? Why should we allow free speech on campus? It's protected under the Bill of rights, as is the 2nd amendment. Sorry, but you just can't pick and choose whatever you fancy.
See post 37
In a word, 'No'.
Who do you think you are to make that determination?
No guns = no crime.
Tell that to the residents of Washington, D.C.
Gun control means using both hands while aiming.
What do you say to the young rape victims where a gun would have been a help? "Tough! My kid is an immature, irresponsible, and dumb kid and he would play with other people's guns while getting smashed at a kegger!"
Maybe young, stupid, boys should be banned from colleges so young, adult women can carry guns for protection without your drunken stupid kid killing someone.
Ah but see if you point that out to the resident of D.C they'll say people from VA are tunneling weapons up into the hands of people in D.C and that's why the gun crimes continue...
They are quick to point the blame instead of facing the truth. It's always someone elses fault that things arent going that way. They never stop to think that making those laws only effects people who will follow them.
And the mere mention of one can inflame liberals.......
Let us just go back in time a little bit. Lets see before the 1990's it was legal to have guns on many college campuses. It is the restrictions that are new. I know this is hard for some to believe but it is so. I know I had one in my car, dorm or purse. No one thought anything about it.
Oh, if we only had a dime....
I don't know if the rest of the Freeposphere is listening,m but I am. That's an excellent idea, and I'm doing that from now on.
Private colleges, yes. Virginia Tech, VCU, and other institutions mentioned are state universities...i.e. public institutions on public property.
Both hands. One pistol in each.
What?!
FR is not conservative. It's MAINSTREAM.
You think college security is going to be around to help? Those guys are most likely going to be college kids themselves, doing security on a work-study basis. They're not obligated to help anyone.
So yes, there should be concealed-carry on campuses, definetly. Here in Green Bay, at the university there has been several high-profile sexual assaults. UWGB is surrounded by wooded areas, paths and the lakefront, as well as the highway. Walking out on campus at night you might as be wearing a "rob me" sign.
When I attended VT (then VPI) we had guns (other than the issued ROTC M1) on a gun rack in my dorm room.
When I attended VT (then VPI) we had guns (other than the issued ROTC M1) on a gun rack in my dorm room.
Tort libel or criminal libel? This crap comes nowhere close to satisfying the elements of criminal libel; consult your local DA for confirmation of this point.
So, tortious libel, then. OK, the elements to satisfy are, in no particular order, and varying slightly by state: 1) The words written must be defamatory and demonstrably untrue (as they say, truth is the perfect defense against libel -- slander, too, btw), 2) The words written must cause provable damage to the subject of the alleged libel, and 3) The author of the words must be found to have or have had malice toward the subject of the alleged libel. Some jurisdictions add one or two other elements, typically minor ones.
Postulating that the untruth of this piece is demonstrable, for instance because of the curious non-Free-Republic user handles cited, element 1 may be satisfied as to falsity. Fraud constitutes falsity, for purposes of libel. Whether or not element 1 is satisfied as to defamation is a gigantic can of worms.
Element 2 is highly doubtful; has Mr. Robinson, or Free Republic, or indeed any poster suffered any sort of damage from the publication of this slop? Dubious at best. Please note that ''emotional damage'' is not typically citable as valid in libel actions, but again this will vary by jurisdiction.
Element 3 is probably demonstrable, given the tone of political ''discourse'' these days. Malice and malicious intent are everywhere, and easily shown as a general thing. Further, willful negligence in ''research'' prior to the article would also satisfy this element, and it's easy enough to believe that the author of this tripe was at least considerably negligent.
Would I rather take the part of the complainant or the respondent here? Easy. The respondent, unless I were highly confident in being able to empanel a jury of FReepers. Even then, I'd want to empanel only the hardest heads.
Libel is a non-starter here, m'friend -- why waste time and money, and aggravate oneself into the bargain?
Full disclosure: I am not nor ever have been involved in the practice of law. My experience with libel stems from having been a complainant in two such actions (both successful, thank you). We've any number of attorneys on here. Why not ping a few of them to the thread for some really expert advice?
Best to you, and FReegards!
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.