Here are two such examples. The 1st is an editorial titled "Be considerate of others -stop smoking." It's little more than a rant by some woman who doesn't like smokers and goes on about how agonizing it is for her to encounter 2nd hand smoke while walking outside around campus.
Here's a gem of a quote from her article.
"Non-smokers have the right to inhale healthy, clean air. Cigarette smoke poses many dangerous side effects to non-smokers. "
She thinks she has "a right to inhale clean air." Haha. My flatulence after leaving taco bell or Quiznos in Trabant says otherwise.
Anyway, here's the comment I left. Sadly the writers of said articles rarely respond to comments.
"I don't smoke, but I have to agree with the 1st comment. There are a million things around you at any given moment of any day that could kill or harm you. Second hand smoke is extremely far down on that list.
Also, you live in Delaware. We dont' exactly have healthy air. There's a nuclear power plant not too far away. If you're driving in or near Delaware City with the windows down in your car that's probably far worse for your health than breathing 2nd hand smoke for a few seconds as you walk by someone on the way to class.
Life is risky, liberty involves risk. Live free and deal with it. If you don't like smokers don't associate with them, but don't ask them to change their habits because of how you feel.
By the way, you most certainly don't have a "right" to clean air. "
Another article was entitled "Walmart takes harsher stance on gun sales."
A quote in the article by one of our Political Science professors, Leslie Golstein, really irked me. She's a Constitutional Law professor, uber-liberal and generally known around campus as a man-hating feminist. I avoided taking a class with her my entire 4 years based on that reputation.
Here's is my comment taking issue with Goldstein
"Goldstein said to get to the root of the problem, the government must crack down on unsanctioned gun shows, where most anyone can buy a gun unlicensed."
"Maybe Professor Goldstein should do a bit of research on this issue before voicing her opinion. Most states (including Delaware) do not require a license to buy a firearm. Violent criminals are the root of the problem, and focusing on an inanimate object will not solve anything. (D.C. has banned guns and has no gun shops, yet it has the highest violent crime rate of any city in the U.S., and citizens have no 2nd or 4th amendment rights.) Criminals buy guns on the black market and steal them by burglarizing homes. If you keep violent offenders locked up you solve the problem.
If I buy a gun at a "gun show" I am required to go through the very same process I would if buying from a gun shop or internet transfer sale. At a gun show I'm still required to buy through a federally licensed dealer, fill out form 4473, go through the federal NICS background check and pay a transfer fee. In most "free" states no background check is required for private party purchases between residents of the same state as long as both buyer and seller can legally make the transaction. Why should there be, since all you have is a situation where two law-abiding citizens are transferring ownership of a product both can legally possess?
I will no longer buy anything from Walmart. There is absolutely no reason for them to record firearms purchases and quite frankly I consider it a violation of privacy. It is harassment of those who have done nothing wrong, and law-abiding gun owners like myself are already being blamed for the actions of criminals. What Walmart is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with firearms laws. If an individual doesn't pass the NICS background check they don't walk out with a gun. Period.
Would Professor Goldstein support such intrusive measures for everyone who buys a kitchen knife? A baseball bat? A tire iron? "