|
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:
TX: New semester at UT renews campus carry debate
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today UT students and faculty went back to school and immediately went back to protesting campus carry. New beginning this school year, carrying concealed weapons on campus is now allowed by state law…
But many at UT are hoping to change that. They lost in the legislature and they lost in the courts, but now opponents of campus carry at UT Austin are focusing on overturning the law or at least being able to opt out.
Just by looking at the size of the crowds that the opponents of campus carry still draw, they just might have the numbers to gun down this legislation. They bristle and cheer “Texas fight!” indicating their will to challenge the new law. |
Comment by:
teebonicus
(8/25/2016)
|
They need to just shut up and go away. |
Comment by:
lbauer
(8/25/2016)
|
Just point out to the precious snowflakes that their classrooms have never ever been gun free zones. Without metal detectors at every entrance, without TSA level body scans, there has never been anything to keep a student or anyone else from carrying a concealed weapon anywhere on campus. Their gun free zone signs never have been worth more than the paper they were printed on. |
|
|
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) |
|
|