|
|
|
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: UT-Austin Nobel Prize Laureate Rails Against Guns On Campus
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Nobel Prize laureate Steven Weinberg--arguably the most famous person at the University of Texas at Austin campus--leaves no room for doubt as to where he stands on the “campus carry” law that will soon allow gun owners to walk around freely with holstered firearms.
He’s very much against the measure.
“I will put it into my syllabus that the class is not open to students carrying guns,” he said during a recent meeting of UT’s Faculty Council covered by the Austin American-Statesman newspaper. “I may wind up in court; I’m willing to accept that responsibility.”
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(1/28/2016)
|
| You can bet that in his classes student are bullied to have similar views or fail his classes. Freedom of thought and speech no longer exist in the captive world of academia. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/28/2016)
|
Carry anyway. No laws broken. Concealed is concealed.
It's unfortunate that some people are so short sighted. Anyone intending harm will not obey any laws, signs, or especially a syllabus. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
