Saw this in the paper yesterday. It made sense to me for some odd reason.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15642968
Printable View
Saw this in the paper yesterday. It made sense to me for some odd reason.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15642968
The ignorance of this statement has always astounded me. Defending your life is so far beyond a disagreement. Like most things, you can never depend on people with zero experience to come up with logical responses to issues. It's the same as people who've never used marijuana in their lives, telling others why it is so bad. You just can't have an appropriate outlook on firearms unless you've owned one.Quote:
"the university is traditionally a place where disagreements are settled through civil debate or the established avenues of conflict resolution."
+1 Stuart.... It should read, "...the University is traditionally a place where disagreements are settled through Dean interaction or dismissal from the school. Do not fight the system. You are not allowed to have an opinion. What the teacher says is complete truth. Always."
He was doing just fine until this:
Here's a challenge for the CU Regents and Boulder Faculty Assembly. They're OK with armed campus police, but not armed citizens with the training and qualifications to have earned a concealed-carry permit. Then why not issue special campus gun permits to those who, at their own expense, undergo the same firearms training as the CU Police?
If this is not acceptable, how about more rigorous training, or limiting permits to faculty and staff? If a regent or CU faculty member opposes this, you should wonder about his actual motives for opposing concealed carry on campus.How about they (CU Regents) just freakin' comply with state law and stop pissing and moaning about people having an effective means to defend themselves. People who have demonstrated they are more law-abiding, as a group, than just about any other group of people.
I really, really hate liberalism. No, really.
Ya, he started to skid down through the skree when he typed this. Then again, suggesting these measures in a conversation with one of the CU board lib-tards to test their motivations is an interesting tactic to ferret out their true motivations. You don't have to believe it to utilize it in a discussion to get to the truth of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Winning a debate regarding the ethical perspectives and cultural implications of a constant material god always ends up asQuote:
"the university is traditionally a place where disagreements are settled through civil debate or the established avenues of conflict resolution."
http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/q...am-mustach.jpg
ALWAYS...for me at least...
[Bang]
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
I agree, I think it was a solid point. You know their answer, and it doesn't match with their stated belief. There is a falacy there that just needs to be dug up. I suspect, civil rights are the ultimate higher calling for them, so long as those rights comply with their perspective and political stance. A civil right which may be of value to others could be seen as quite evil to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
I Disagree with all of you so I emptied a Magazine of .40 into the monitor.
/sarcasm
coming from the denver post, I give them 4.5/5 stars.
at least this is a step in the right direction. of course it isn't exactly what we want, but just a little bit of this talk within a liberal newspaper is a very good thing.
we want to change liberals from within, even if it isn't exactly what we want, this is a huge step in the right direction and hopefully it changed some minds of the libtards out there.
the truth is that the upper level educational facilities in this country are predominantly controlled by left wing tree huggers, both at the faculty and the management level.
they have been unsuccessful in taking away your gun rights overall so they are interested in holding onto the areas where they have been able to outlaw the guns.
they see this as a stepping stone that they achieved and they are unwilling to give it up. they know what is good for you and your are too stupid to understand the whole picture.
in their minds the entire country should hand in their guns. then there wouldn't be any gun violence.
and then we will love each other and everyone will live happily ever after paying taxes and supporting our federal govt. which has nothing but our best interest at heart. group hug[Puke][Puke][Puke]
I'm not trying to get all worked into a gun rights debate, BUT in a perfect world in the perfect conditions that would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
It's a Utopian pipe-dream, but under the perfect conditions it would work.
Perfect conditions that do not exist, SO, since we are playing in the real world...[UZI]
I've heard people say stupid things like "If it were up to me, I'd have all the guns melted down into scrap." Apparently they've never considered the reality of how you're going to get guns away from people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
-libtard "yeah but if we make it a LAW then everyone will just turn them in!" /libtard
[ROFL1]
contard "we'll just round them all up and send them home! problem solved!" /contardQuote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
No one has a monopoly on bad ideas.