Denver Post Article on CU Gun Ban

[Byte Stryke]

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.

+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.

Winning a debate regarding the ethical perspectives and cultural implications of a constant material god always ends up as



ALWAYS...for me at least...

+1

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.

I Disagree with all of you so I emptied a Magazine of .40 into the monitor.

/sarcasm