|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
