Armed but not Dangerous? Arizona Allows Guns very near Campus

Good move on the state's part. People should not be stripped of their right to self defense just because they have to visit a "no guns" area.(FWIW I am against "no guns" areas in any public building or or public access area like a parking lot.)

Here's an article which addresses the matter quite nicely:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5723-Albuquerque-Li...

It is an interesting article but it fails when it comes to the variable size of the bubble and failure to recognize shared, public spaces as places where everyone's rights and freedoms are somewhat curtailed by how the expression of those freedoms affect others.

I can invite people to my house then tell an obnoxious guest to leave. It is my house. If the neighbors invite people over and learn that I am carrying a firearm, it is with-in their rights to ask me to leave. This is without regard to whether they trust me with or without a gun. it is their private property and irrational rules may be applied.

As to the rape question, that is a red-herring. No one has the right to violate the personal space/integrity of another. If that violation is violence, BO or tobacco smoke, it does not matter. In public areas, it is my responsibility to remove myself from someone with noxious BO or who smokes a nasty cigar. In my private property, it is they who must leave if I request it.

I suppose it would be an interesting time if Mr. McManigal came to my home and decided to crap on the floor or smoke a cigar. He will assert his right to do anything he chooses while I will assert my right to toss him off my property. Reading Mr. McManigal article leads me to believe that he feels that he would have the right to masturbate in front on my kids so long as he does not ejaculate on them, violating their "bubble".

He is espousing anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians realize that their freedoms carry responsibilities and are not a license to do whatever they wish, where ever they wish.

GPM wrote:

It is an interesting article but it fails when it comes to the variable size of the bubble and failure to recognize shared, public spaces as places where everyone's rights and freedoms are somewhat curtailed by how the expression of those freedoms affect others.
I can invite people to my house then tell an obnoxious guest to leave. It is my house. If the neighbors invite people over and learn that I am carrying a firearm, it is with-in their rights to ask me to leave. This is without regard to whether they trust me with or without a gun. it is their private property and irrational rules may be applied.
As to the rape question, that is a red-herring. No one has the right to violate the personal space/integrity of another. If that violation is violence, BO or tobacco smoke, it does not matter. In public areas, it is my responsibility to remove myself from someone with noxious BO or who smokes a nasty cigar. In my private property, it is they who must leave if I request it.
I suppose it would be an interesting time if Mr. McManigal came to my home and decided to crap on the floor or smoke a cigar. He will assert his right to do anything he chooses while I will assert my right to toss him off my property. Reading Mr. McManigal article leads me to believe that he feels that he would have the right to masturbate in front on my kids so long as he does not ejaculate on them, violating their "bubble".
He is espousing anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians realize that their freedoms carry responsibilities and are not a license to do whatever they wish, where ever they wish.

Interesting take.
.
I didn't even come close to that interpretation when I read it.

He writes about absolutes. I got this from his article: "I am either free or I am a slave. If I am free, you can not stop me from exercising my freedom anywhere I chose."

He seems to ignore that in being so, he infringes upon the freedoms of everyone else. His "bubble" is too large and too encompassing to work if anyone else has freedoms and chose to exercise them at odds with the author.

Then again, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again in the future.