Campus carry policy under review, restrictions pending

[Censored by Laurie]

36 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Anyone who continually says they aren't anti-gun while continually  exposing anti-gun views is anti-gun. 

so in your world view, an individual couldn't possibly own a hunting rifle or keep a pistol in the bed-side table while also wondering whether or not it's a good idea for a college student to carry on campus? 

[Army of Dad]

8 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

so in your world view, an individual couldn't possibly own a hunting rifle or keep a pistol in the bed-side table while also wondering whether or not it's a good idea for a college student to carry on campus? 

That's isn't what he said and you know it. -66 is consistently anti- 2nd Amedment, yet tries to throw out that's he's not in just about every post. I honestly can't recall a single position he took that was pro gun rights.

[Censored by Laurie]

28 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

That's isn't what he said and you know it. -66 is consistently anti- 2nd Amedment, yet tries to throw out that's he's not in just about every post. I honestly can't recall a single position he took that was pro gun rights.

I'm pretty certain he's said he owns guns (feel free to confirm/deny). but if so...that, in and of itself, would make him pro-second amendment, no?

either way...I don't own guns...I'm for limitations on aspects of gun-ownership and feel we could do well with meaningful dialogue on our gun-culture...but I'm not against most people's ability to own a firearm. 

[Army of Dad]

1 minute ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I'm pretty certain he's said he owns guns (feel free to confirm/deny). but if so...that, in and of itself, would make him pro-second amendment, no?

either way...I don't own guns...I'm for limitations on aspects of gun-ownership and feel we could do well with meaningful dialogue on our gun-culture...but I'm not against most people's ability to own a firearm. 

No, it doesn't make one pro-second amendment. In the Venn diagram of gun owners there will be a portion that lie outside of the intersecting pro-2A group.

[Censored by Laurie]

29 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

No, it doesn't make one pro-second amendment. In the Venn diagram of gun owners there will be a portion that lie outside of the intersecting pro-2A group.

uh? 

I'm sorry...but if you legally own a gun in this country then you're showing your invariable support for the second amendment. the second amendment in this case is the piece of paper on which you've drawn your venn diagram. 

[UNT90]

21 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I'm pretty certain he's said he owns guns (feel free to confirm/deny). but if so...that, in and of itself, would make him pro-second amendment, no?

either way...I don't own guns...I'm for limitations on aspects of gun-ownership and feel we could do well with meaningful dialogue on our gun-culture...but I'm not against most people's ability to own a firearm. 

He says a lot of things. If I said I was pro abortion and then railed against stem cell research on fetuses and late term abortions I would be doing what he constantly does.

Its an old liberal trick. Portray yourself as a moderate republican publicly while expousing every liberal talking point out straight from the democrat party. That's what 66 does. On all sorts of issues.

He is a fiscal conservative and has a huge problem with conservative debt, yet is perfectly ok with Pres. Obama's debt and has never, ever criticized Pres. Obama's massive spending. Ever. That's not a fiscal conservative.

It would be like me claiming I'm a liberal democrat. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

34 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

He says a lot of things.

ya. I stopped reading right here. 

[UNTFan23]

12 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

Although what this Dallas HS kid was illegal ... what he did is what I fear will happen in college classrooms... He illegally had a gun but dropped it or somehow managed to shoot himself. It is a wonder it did not hit someone else and seriously injure or kill them.... Too many people have no business carrying a gun.. too careless and don't respect how dangerous they can be. .  [ I'm not anti-gun in general ] More people will be killed by carelessness and drunks/druggies on campus than saved..... Can anyone name an incident in Texas in the past few years in which a student would have saved lives if he had had a gun..??

 

That's a tad bit challenging given that colleges up until recently were basically considered gun free zones.

[UNT90]

11 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

ya. I stopped reading right here. 

Too bad. Guess you don't like history of inconsistencies.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

yep (UNTFan23)  ..... Exactly and they have been safe.... they will less safe when students are carrying guns.... When the girl was murdered at UT this year .. that was the first student killed on camp us since Whitman's tower incident in 1965 or 1966..  Oddly the killer was a guy picked up hitch-hiking and dropped over there by a policeman that had picked up on I-35.  [ no gun was involved ]... 

[UNTFan23]

Just now, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

yep (UNTFan23)  ..... Exactly and they have been safe.... they will less safe when students are carrying guns.... When the girl was murdered at UT this year .. that was the first student killed on camp us since Whitman's tower incident in 1965 or 1966..  Oddly the killer was a guy picked up hitch-hiking and dropped over there by a policeman that had picked up on I-35.  [ no gun was involved ]... 

I like you linked a murder that didn't involve a gun to making campuses less safe due to campus carry.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

She was not of age to carry anyway .... [ must be 21 ]

[UNTFan23]

34 minutes ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

She was not of age to carry anyway .... [ must be 21 ]

So, still impossible to tell if campus carry would have made a difference.  Gotchya.

[UNT90]

8 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

yep (UNTFan23)  ..... Exactly and they have been safe.... they will less safe when students are carrying guns.... When the girl was murdered at UT this year .. that was the first student killed on camp us since Whitman's tower incident in 1965 or 1966..  Oddly the killer was a guy picked up hitch-hiking and dropped over there by a policeman that had picked up on I-35.  [ no gun was involved ]... 

Wow. People can be killed without using a gun? That admission is a big step for you.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Yep they can ... remember the Crusades.. no guns ...yet thousands were killed and the Romans empire killed 1000's also ... no guns..... I thought I would let you know... 

You always continue what you do ... I post .. you smart off, almost every time ... it gets annoying....  Just one example of what I claim about you... That is who you are.....

Edited May 6, 2016 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

On May 5, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

uh? 

I'm sorry...but if you legally own a gun in this country then you're showing your invariable support for the second amendment. the second amendment in this case is the piece of paper on which you've drawn your venn diagram. 

Nope, just when you go on your "I am this, but here are views that aren't this at all."

You think you are the only person that should be allowed to own guns (if you really do, which I doubt at this point) and every other person should have to give up their rights but you. 

That isn't the way the law works.

[Rudy]

23 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

So, still impossible to tell if campus carry would have made a difference.  Gotchya.

Although it wasn't Texas, a year or two ago, some dick went on a stabbing rampage up in Oregon, I believe.

[UNT90]

On May 6, 2016 at 11:35 PM, UNTFan23 said:

So, still impossible to tell if campus carry would have made a difference.  Gotchya.

Va. Tech disagrees with you...

[UNTFan23]

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

Va. Tech disagrees with you...

I was trying to think of situations in TX but the Virginia Tech one will be surrounded with what ifs for quite a while.

[Censored by Laurie]

On 5/7/2016 at 10:55 PM, UNT90 said:

Nope, just when you go on your "I am this, but here are views that aren't this at all."

You think you are the only person that should be allowed to own guns (if you really do, which I doubt at this point) and every other person should have to give up their rights but you. 

That isn't the way the law works.

posted Friday at 10:55PM.

one of my favorite GMG past-times is showing up here Monday morning and seeing all of UNT90's non-sensical drunk-posts from the weekend. 

[UNT90]

1 minute ago, Censored by Laurie said:

posted Friday at 10:55PM.

one of my favorite GMG past-times is showing up here Monday morning and seeing all of UNT90's non-sensical drunk-posts from the weekend. 

I guess you don't pay attention to what 66 posts, or think it's ok to have different standards for yourself and others, political parties on spending, and a whole host of other issues.

No drunk posting. 

[Censored by Laurie]

11 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

I guess you don't pay attention to what 66 posts, or think it's ok to have different standards for yourself and others, political parties on spending, and a whole host of other issues.

No drunk posting. 

a distant relative of mine once famously said "write drunk, edit sober". you should go sift through your late-night posting history. 

list of things I've stated:

1. in response to a discussion with Army of Dad - legal US gun owners invariably support the second amendment...by...wait for it...owning guns. 
2. in relation to 66 - I stated that I believe he has mentioned that he owns guns...to which, see #1 for then his then logical view of the second amendment. 
3. in relation to my personal views - I don't own guns and have no interest in ever owning a gun but I have zero want to deny the majority of individuals from owning guns if they so choose, though with more over-sight, regulation and scrutiny than exists now...and that I imagine you would support. 

somehow that lead you to quote me (though I'm guessing by drunken accident now) and rant on about your new found legal expertise and then respond with yet another one of your only viewing the world through political partisan rants (who the eff mentioned political spending?)

ya drunk. 

[UNT90]

2 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

a distant relative of mine once famously said "write drunk, edit sober". you should go sift through your late-night posting history. 

list of things I've stated:

1. in response to a discussion with Army of Dad - legal US gun owners invariably support the second amendment...by...wait for it...owning guns. 
2. in relation to 66 - I stated that I believe he has mentioned that he owns guns...to which, see #1 for then his then logical view of the second amendment. 
3. in relation to my personal views - I don't own guns and have no interest in ever owning a gun but I have zero want to deny the majority of individuals from owning guns if they so choose, though with more over-sight, regulation and scrutiny than exists now...and that I imagine you would support. 

somehow that lead you to quote me (though I'm guessing by drunken accident now) and rant on about your new found legal expertise and then respond with yet another one of your only viewing the world through political partisan rants (who the eff mentioned political spending?)

ya drunk. 

He supports gun ownership for himself (if you believe he actually owns guns), but doesn't want others to have the same rights he has? Consistency that I talked about.

66 falsely passes himself off as a fiscal conservative, yet only ever brings up Bush's spending. What he really means is that he is against Republican spending, but not democrat spending. Because he is a democrat, not a conservative as he so often claims.

The fact that a self proclaimed liberal democrat (nothing wrong with that) feels the need to post in his defense is another clue. 

As far as viewing the world through partisan glasses, that is your deal, not mine. I'm conservative, I challenge your views. You accuse me of posting drunk, which I don't do (really don't partake that much anymore, truth be told). Let's try to keep the debate on issues, shall we? I know it's hard, because the personal attack is the go to for liberals, because if you disagree with them, you are a terrible person, but let's try all the same.

[Censored by Laurie]

51 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

He supports gun ownership for himself (if you believe he actually owns guns), but doesn't want others to have the same rights he has? Consistency that I talked about.

66 falsely passes himself off as a fiscal conservative, yet only ever brings up Bush's spending. What he really means is that he is against Republican spending, but not democrat spending. Because he is a democrat, not a conservative as he so often claims.

The fact that a self proclaimed liberal democrat (nothing wrong with that) feels the need to post in his defense is another clue. 

As far as viewing the world through partisan glasses, that is your deal, not mine. I'm conservative, I challenge your views. You accuse me of posting drunk, which I don't do (really don't partake that much anymore, truth be told). Let's try to keep the debate on issues, shall we? I know it's hard, because the personal attack is the go to for liberals, because if you disagree with them, you are a terrible person, but let's try all the same.

What you are posting as fact is your idiot opinion. You have no way of knowing the circumstances. But that didnt stop you from creating them to fit your agenda. That is what I am talking about. Making crap up to validate your personal opinion. And that's exactly what you did here.

 

(I'm pretty sure that if I were to take the time to dig through your 25,000+ posts that you've refuted and contradicted yourself enough that I could just quote you rather than expending the effort to reply)

[UNT90]

54 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

What you are posting as fact is your idiot opinion. You have no way of knowing the circumstances. But that didnt stop you from creating them to fit your agenda. That is what I am talking about. Making crap up to validate your personal opinion. And that's exactly what you did here.

 

(I'm pretty sure that if I were to take the time to dig through your 25,000+ posts that you've refuted and contradicted yourself enough that I could just quote you rather than expending the effort to reply)

No, 66 has posted exactly these things. I guess you don't care about his inconsistencies because you are of a similar political ilk. 

But whatevs, people can read. At least some people...