UT professors vow to defy the law

[PaintMyHouse]

"Give me more Vladameir, give me more, I luv it, I like it, give me more of it."

Your love of dictators is noted.

 

[SwimExpert]

This thread sucks. Everyone, on both sides of this, is making a dumbass out of themselves.

 

[bendog]

the op is a ......

http://photos.dnronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712-all-stars-sfb1-jf.jpg

 

[Pete7469]

the op is a ......

http://photos.dnronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712-all-stars-sfb1-jf.jpg

You're one of the few bed wetters I don't have on ignore but I'm not surprised you have no valuable response to the thread.

In your world ethical standards are only for the opposition. Your political allies are above reproach.

That's how tyranny begins.

 

[Pete7469]

This thread sucks. Everyone, on both sides of this, is making a dumbass out of themselves.

So stand above the rest, make a comment that discusses the issue of democrooks refusing to abide by some laws, but demanding prosecution for people they hate defying laws they like.

The floor is yours.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Texas Professors Refuse To Comply With Campus Carry Law

Campus carry is the law of the land in Texas.

Students are allowed to carry handguns on college campuses – including the classroom.

But that doesn’t matter to some liberal professors who have vowed to defy the law and prohibit guns in their classrooms, CampusReform is reporting.

So let me get this straight moonbats, when it comes to queer marriage, obozocare or any beloved bed wetter policy we're told to accept it, it's the law of the land and we have to respect it.

However it it's a law that increases nocturnal urination you celebrate people who openly defy it, or people who refuse to enforce it even if their job is to do so.

I sincerely hope the state legislature and the UT governing board ensures that if any students rights are violated that these petulant bed wetters are fired or otherwise prosecuted. If these blithering idiots are so determined to live in a disarmed state they need to take their parasitic asses to commiefornia or Assachewsits. We don't need or want moonbats in Texas and we've done quite well without them.

View attachment 51171

Just claim that allowing guns in there would be against your religious beliefs and the RW will be on board, right?


*crickets*

 

[bendog]

the op is a ......

http://photos.dnronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712-all-stars-sfb1-jf.jpg

You're one of the few bed wetters I don't have on ignore but I'm not surprised you have no valuable response to the thread.

In your world ethical standards are only for the opposition. Your political allies are above reproach.

That's how tyranny begins.

Well, Davis was accommodated; she wasn't jailed if her deputies could provide licenses. And, getting married isn't exactly the same as thinking you have a FUNDAMENTAL right to pack anywhere you want. The professors do appear to be violating a state law. But, even so, are the students somehow totally deprived of earning the degrees they want?

That's why your op is a ..... strrrrrreeeeettttch.

 

[SwimExpert]

This thread sucks. Everyone, on both sides of this, is making a dumbass out of themselves.

So stand above the rest, make a comment that discusses the issue of democrooks refusing to abide by some laws, but demanding prosecution for people they hate defying laws they like.

The floor is yours.

Like Zarathustra before the tightrope walker.

 

[Pete7469]

the op is a ......

http://photos.dnronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712-all-stars-sfb1-jf.jpg

You're one of the few bed wetters I don't have on ignore but I'm not surprised you have no valuable response to the thread.

In your world ethical standards are only for the opposition. Your political allies are above reproach.

That's how tyranny begins.

Well, Davis was accommodated; she wasn't jailed if her deputies could provide licenses. And, getting married isn't exactly the same as thinking you have a FUNDAMENTAL right to pack anywhere you want. The professors do appear to be violating a state law. But, even so, are the students somehow totally deprived of earning the degrees they want?

That's why your op is a ..... strrrrrreeeeettttch.

Wrong.

There is a constitutional RKBA, there isn't a word about gay marriage, gays, or marriage. That's a "right" pulled out of thin air and established through judicial fiat. Putting Davis in jail for standing up for her 1st Amendment right to practice her religion outweighs the fabricated rights liberal judges invoked. Another thing, in many states the political will of the people led to laws forbidding butt pirate unions including commiefornia during the same election the moonbat messiah was first thrust upon us. What did the bed wetters do? They employed activist judges to overrule the people.

The democrooks passed obozo through legislative fiat without a single republicrat vote against the groundswell of public opinion that led to the democrooks getting spanked in 2010, but here's the moonbats insisting "it's the law of the land, just accept it". On top of that you show complete indifference to the fact that your messiah changed the law to suit his purposes. You have refused to hold that pathetic meat muppet accountable for his many transgressions, but you're sure determined to have Kim Davis prosecuted.

I say "you" in reference to the rest of the moonbat mob, but I don't think you personally are nearly as brain dead as most of them.

 

[bendog]

the op is a ......

http://photos.dnronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712-all-stars-sfb1-jf.jpg

You're one of the few bed wetters I don't have on ignore but I'm not surprised you have no valuable response to the thread.

In your world ethical standards are only for the opposition. Your political allies are above reproach.

That's how tyranny begins.

Well, Davis was accommodated; she wasn't jailed if her deputies could provide licenses. And, getting married isn't exactly the same as thinking you have a FUNDAMENTAL right to pack anywhere you want. The professors do appear to be violating a state law. But, even so, are the students somehow totally deprived of earning the degrees they want?

That's why your op is a ..... strrrrrreeeeettttch.

Wrong.

There is a constitutional RKBA, there isn't a word about gay marriage, gays, or marriage. That's a "right" pulled out of thin air and established through judicial fiat. Putting Davis in jail for standing up for her 1st Amendment right to practice her religion outweighs the fabricated rights liberal judges invoked. Another thing, in many states the political will of the people led to laws forbidding butt pirate unions including commiefornia during the same election the moonbat messiah was first thrust upon us. What did the bed wetters do? They employed activist judges to overrule the people.

The democrooks passed obozo through legislative fiat without a single republicrat vote against the groundswell of public opinion that led to the democrooks getting spanked in 2010, but here's the moonbats insisting "it's the law of the land, just accept it". On top of that you show complete indifference to the fact that your messiah changed the law to suit his purposes. You have refused to hold that pathetic meat muppet accountable for his many transgressions, but you're sure determined to have Kim Davis prosecuted.

I say "you" in reference to the rest of the moonbat mob, but I don't think you personally are nearly as brain dead as most of them.

you don't have and never did have a right to carry anything anytime and any where. The Founders never supported that. There were laws on storage, carry and where firearms could be fired. You drank coolaid.

 

[Pete7469]

you don't have and never did have a right to carry anything anytime and any where. The Founders never supported that. There were laws on storage, carry and where firearms could be fired. You drank coolaid.

You're huffing paint.

There isn't a word in the COTUS about storage, carry, or where weapons can be fired.

Besides that no one is talking about firing weapons. The argument is about the law of Texas stating that a licensed carrier may carry on campus. You don't like it, boo hoo. It's the law of the land. Accept it, and condemn the sniveling bed wetters acting like petulant children because the majority of the state supports concealed carry.

Period.

That's the law, yet you bed wetters throw in straw men arguments, dodge the facts and support people vowing to defy the law.

 

[bendog]

you don't have and never did have a right to carry anything anytime and any where. The Founders never supported that. There were laws on storage, carry and where firearms could be fired. You drank coolaid.

You're huffing paint.

There isn't a word in the COTUS about storage, carry, or where weapons can be fired.

Besides that no one is talking about firing weapons. The argument is about the law of Texas stating that a licensed carrier may carry on campus. You don't like it, boo hoo. It's the law of the land. Accept it, and condemn the sniveling bed wetters acting like petulant children because the majority of the state supports concealed carry.

Period.

That's the law, yet you bed wetters throw in straw men arguments, dodge the facts and support people vowing to defy the law.

At the time the const and bor were ratified, states had laws on the storage and use of firearms. You never had a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, You are drinking the coolaid acid juice

 

[Pete7469]

At the time the const and bor were ratified, states had laws on the storage and use of firearms. You never had a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, You are drinking the coolaid acid juice

That has nothing to do with the fact that we now have the right to carry on campus.

I'm curious about what state laws were in place before the 13 colonies were actually states that ratified the COTUS, but if they were colonial era laws left over from british oppression, well then fuck 'em. Furthermore after ratification of the BOR, any law that infringed on the RKBA was rendered null and void.

Now the precedent has been established since Heller and McDonald that the BOR trumps state law, though the court did allow for some regulation the states can not prevent people from RKBA.

Stop huffing paint. The RKBA is the law of the land. It's ok though, you're safer that way wether you want to believe that or not.

 

[Dan Daly]

I'm probably the most rabid advocate of any kind of carry that you will ever meet....but I tell you what, just like I do when I have meetings here in my company, if I were teaching a class all "devices" and firearms get checked at the door...and I lead by example by checking my XD and my cell phone first. While you certainly have the right to carry wherever you choose...in my meetings or classrooms, they WILL be stowed until we are done doing business. Don't like it, tough shit.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm probably the most rabid advocate of any kind of carry that you will ever meet....but I tell you what, just like I do when I have meetings here in my company, if I were teaching a class all "devices" and firearms get checked at the door...and I lead by example by checking my XD and my cell phone first. While you certainly have the right to carry wherever you choose...in my meetings or classrooms, they WILL be stowed until we are done doing business. Don't like it, tough shit.

That's your company and your right.

 

[bendog]

At the time the const and bor were ratified, states had laws on the storage and use of firearms. You never had a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, You are drinking the coolaid acid juice

That has nothing to do with the fact that we now have the right to carry on campus.

I'm curious about what state laws were in place before the 13 colonies were actually states that ratified the COTUS, but if they were colonial era laws left over from british oppression, well then fuck 'em. Furthermore after ratification of the BOR, any law that infringed on the RKBA was rendered null and void.

Now the precedent has been established since Heller and McDonald that the BOR trumps state law, though the court did allow for some regulation the states can not prevent people from RKBA.

Stop huffing paint. The RKBA is the law of the land. It's ok though, you're safer that way wether you want to believe that or not.

No, you read the 2nd as some right that has no limitations. That's impossible because at the time it was ratified THERE WERE LIMITATIONS. You are attempting to ascribe some meaning to the second that the founders could not logically have ever intended. And even the wording of "infringe" does not mean no limitation; it means the right cannot be taken away. If the founders wanted this one, single, freedom to be so special that there could not be any limitation, no matter how reasonable, they'd have explicitly said so, and it sure as hell wouldn't the SECOND amendment.

NEVER in the history of America has the 2nd been construed as you imagine.

You've been sold some bs American history nonsense by people whose motivations are not in this country's best interest, but rather in their pocketbooks.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Texas Professors Refuse To Comply With Campus Carry Law

Campus carry is the law of the land in Texas.

Students are allowed to carry handguns on college campuses – including the classroom.

But that doesn’t matter to some liberal professors who have vowed to defy the law and prohibit guns in their classrooms, CampusReform is reporting.

So let me get this straight moonbats, when it comes to queer marriage, obozocare or any beloved bed wetter policy we're told to accept it, it's the law of the land and we have to respect it.

However it it's a law that increases nocturnal urination you celebrate people who openly defy it, or people who refuse to enforce it even if their job is to do so.

I sincerely hope the state legislature and the UT governing board ensures that if any students rights are violated that these petulant bed wetters are fired or otherwise prosecuted. If these blithering idiots are so determined to live in a disarmed state they need to take their parasitic asses to commiefornia or Assachewsits. We don't need or want moonbats in Texas and we've done quite well without them.

View attachment 51171

(shrugs) Prisons are full of people who refused to comply with laws they didn't like.

 

[Pete7469]

No, you read the 2nd as some right that has no limitations. That's impossible because at the time it was ratified THERE WERE LIMITATIONS. You are attempting to ascribe some meaning to the second that the founders could not logically have ever intended. And even the wording of "infringe" does not mean no limitation; it means the right cannot be taken away. If the founders wanted this one, single, freedom to be so special that there could not be any limitation, no matter how reasonable, they'd have explicitly said so, and it sure as hell wouldn't the SECOND amendment.

NEVER in the history of America has the 2nd been construed as you imagine.

You've been sold some bs American history nonsense by people whose motivations are not in this country's best interest, but rather in their pocketbooks.

You're still on that old saw? The point is we have the right to carry on campus.

Period.

Bed wetting petulant liberals vow to defy the law. Is that a problem for you?

Indeed I read the 2A literally, and whatever laws in place prior to the BOR being ratified were nullified, and your statement that my interpretation has NEVER been reality is bullshit. People were carrying guns all over the country for decades with zero restrictions because there were at best territorial governments that didn't have the power to regulate anything. In Vermont there are still almost no limits at all on carry rights so you're just dead wrong.

However that isn't the issue, and I will address it no further.

Is it ok for moonbats to deny rights to students?

The Vermont Constitution of 1777, dating well before the Bill of Rights to a time when Vermont was an independent republic, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."[3] In the modern era, the Vermont Supreme Court established the right to carry firearms without a permit in State v Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295 (1903).[4][5]

 

[Defiant1]

At the time the const and bor were ratified, states had laws on the storage and use of firearms. You never had a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, You are drinking the coolaid acid juice

That has nothing to do with the fact that we now have the right to carry on campus.

I'm curious about what state laws were in place before the 13 colonies were actually states that ratified the COTUS, but if they were colonial era laws left over from british oppression, well then fuck 'em. Furthermore after ratification of the BOR, any law that infringed on the RKBA was rendered null and void.

Now the precedent has been established since Heller and McDonald that the BOR trumps state law, though the court did allow for some regulation the states can not prevent people from RKBA.

Stop huffing paint. The RKBA is the law of the land. It's ok though, you're safer that way wether you want to believe that or not.

No, you read the 2nd as some right that has no limitations. That's impossible because at the time it was ratified THERE WERE LIMITATIONS. You are attempting to ascribe some meaning to the second that the founders could not logically have ever intended. And even the wording of "infringe" does not mean no limitation; it means the right cannot be taken away. If the founders wanted this one, single, freedom to be so special that there could not be any limitation, no matter how reasonable, they'd have explicitly said so, and it sure as hell wouldn't the SECOND amendment.

NEVER in the history of America has the 2nd been construed as you imagine.

You've been sold some bs American history nonsense by people whose motivations are not in this country's best interest, but rather in their pocketbooks.

The 2nd amendment acknowledges the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing that right.

The Constitution including the BOR, or first ten amendments, is a document that acknowledges the rights of the people and limits the power of the government.

No rights are bestowed by the Constitution.

 

[bendog]

No

At the time the const and bor were ratified, states had laws on the storage and use of firearms. You never had a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, You are drinking the coolaid acid juice

That has nothing to do with the fact that we now have the right to carry on campus.

I'm curious about what state laws were in place before the 13 colonies were actually states that ratified the COTUS, but if they were colonial era laws left over from british oppression, well then fuck 'em. Furthermore after ratification of the BOR, any law that infringed on the RKBA was rendered null and void.

Now the precedent has been established since Heller and McDonald that the BOR trumps state law, though the court did allow for some regulation the states can not prevent people from RKBA.

Stop huffing paint. The RKBA is the law of the land. It's ok though, you're safer that way wether you want to believe that or not.

No, you read the 2nd as some right that has no limitations. That's impossible because at the time it was ratified THERE WERE LIMITATIONS. You are attempting to ascribe some meaning to the second that the founders could not logically have ever intended. And even the wording of "infringe" does not mean no limitation; it means the right cannot be taken away. If the founders wanted this one, single, freedom to be so special that there could not be any limitation, no matter how reasonable, they'd have explicitly said so, and it sure as hell wouldn't the SECOND amendment.

NEVER in the history of America has the 2nd been construed as you imagine.

You've been sold some bs American history nonsense by people whose motivations are not in this country's best interest, but rather in their pocketbooks.

The 2nd amendment acknowledges the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing that right.

The Constitution including the BOR, or first ten amendments, is a document that acknowledges the rights of the people and limits the power of the government.

No rights are bestowed by the Constitution.

No rights in the BoR are without limitation. there's NO evidence the Founders intended any right to be. In fact, the founders agreed that States could place reasonable limitations on firearms. You guys have been sold a brand of American history that began around 1980.