(Moran GOP) Guns on campus faces GOP push back (Tennesee)

[jpak]

http://www.dnj.com/article/20110426/NEWS01/104260318

MURFREESBORO — MTSU president Sidney McPhee supports efforts by two of the GOP's most powerful state politicians to stop a bill that would allow faculty and staff to carry guns on public university campuses.

"We are strongly opposed to that bill and to the intent of that bill," McPhee told The DNJ Monday.

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey are working against the bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, and Rep. Andy Holt, R-Dresden.

School administrators have joined some law enforcement associations in opposing the measure.

<more>

Even some repugs don't like the GOP/NRA guns-everywhere-all-the-time agenda

yup

[GKirk]

1. Here's a curiosity question for you...

...would you vote for an anti-gun republican over a pro-gun democrat?
(let's say on other issues both are similar)

[denverbill]

2. If I oppose giving 3 years old loaded guns, am I 'anti-gun'?

Define 'anti-gun'.

[GKirk]

4. I gotta ask...

...are there people advocating giving loaded guns to 3 year olds?

[Ship of Fools]

5. no

There are people who advocate for laws that reduce the possibility of 3 year olds getting their unsuspecting hands on loaded guns, just for starters ...

[denverbill]

8. I don't know. I was just asking for your definition of 'anti-gun'.

Years ago, 'anti-gun' meant someone who opposed private ownership of firearms. Then when almost nobody opposed that anymore, it became someone who opposed ownership of machine guns or high capacity magazines. Nowadays, it seems to be anyone who opposes weapons being allowed in churches, bars, schools, etc, seemingly everywhere (except, it seems, where the guns may actually pose a danger to people who pass the laws (legislatures and courthouses)), is considered anti-gun. In towns where laws have been passed mandating that everyone own a gun, I would presume that anyone who voted against the laws or anyone who opts against owning a gun would be considered 'anti-gun', even if they might hold no objections to their fellow citizens walking around everywhere armed to the teeth. It seems to me like anyone who is insufficiently 'pro-gun' is considered 'anti-gun' these days. There are no 'Reasonable restrictions' as far as some folks are concerned.

[PavePusher]

9. What are these "reasonable restrictions" you speak of?

And if they are so "reasonable", why not apply them to every Civil Right?

[denverbill]

11. Yes, you're right. It's perfectly fine to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

Nobody could possibly want to restrict my free speech rights that way. It's fine to advocate assassinating the President or armed rebellion against the US Government as well.

And thank god there are no restrictions on freedom of the press, so I can feel free to see Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl or hear strings of f-bombs on children's Saturday morning TV.

Yes, thank God all those freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are absolute, subject to no reasonable restrictions.

[PavePusher]

13. Since no-one suggested deristricting the things you bring up, and similar restrictions already exist

for guns, what is your point?

What additional "reasonable restrictions" do you want?

[gejohnston]

10. opposing machine guns came before private ownership

since machine guns have been tightly regulated since the 1930s. I think current federal laws are reasonable

[gejohnston]

7. three year old, no.

I define "anti gun" as:
those who find any of the shooting sports repulsive
those who equate resisting an rapist or robber with vigilantism
think that the current five federal gun control laws do not exist.
those who dismiss peer reviewed research done by a liberal Democrat criminologist as "NRA shill job" while treating any Brady talking point, no matter how baseless or absurd, as the gospel truth.

[denverbill]

12. Well I'm sure you would consider me anti-gun.

I don't consider skeet or target shooting repulsive. I don't want to hunt personally, but I have no objection to hunters who hunt for food. Killing anything else just for the hell of it I find a bit repulsive.

Resist away. No problem here.

I don't dispute their existence. I think they are laxly enforced and I think we could use a few more though.

I don't spend enough time in the gun forum to know either the liberal criminologist or the Brady talking points, so I won't bother with that one.

But I do consider background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on carrying in bars, schools, churches, public gatherings, restrictions on allowable weapons, etc, as 'reasonable'. There are other folks who consider anyone who favors any of those things as 'anti-gun' or even 'gun-grabbers'.

[jpak]

3. Depends on his/her stands on other issues - there is no "perfect" candidate

and virtually all the really stupid gun bills being considered this year in sate legislatures have been sponsored by GOP morans - not Dems

so there are few - if any - extremist pro-gun Dems *not* to vote for

yup

[PavePusher]

6. So, since the intent of the bill is for lawful firearms owners....

to be able to add another layer to their personal security, McPhee is opposed to his students personal security.

Ivory-tower moron, the very definition of, one each. What a fool.