|
|
|
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:
KS: Why I’m resigning from KU
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In light of the state of Kansas’ apparent determination to allow the concealed carry of firearms in the classrooms of the University of Kansas, I am writing to tender my resignation effective two weeks from today as an associate professor of history and American studies at the university. I have accepted a job in a state that bans concealed carry in classrooms.
Ed.: Don't let the door hit you... |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/6/2017)
|
| Glad to see you go, take all of your buddies with you! Where are you going to go when all states are campus carry? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/6/2017)
|
| Those same students carry where you shop, get gas, and eat out, so you may have to leave the country to FEEL safe. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/6/2017)
|
Another anti gun liberal. No doubt he found a better job somewhere else and took the opportunity to bash gun rights on his way out.
If he believes that making a university a victim disarmament zone makes him safer, he is just plain stupid. Anyone intent on shooting someone will not be deterred by prohibitions on guns. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
