There’s been quite of few people out there who believe (or believed) that the only answer to their troubles was to “pop a few caps” on their “problems.” Those that “believed” are either dead or incarcerated.

Even back when folks went armed( during the 1800s), when someone wore a pistol, they also took on a responsibility — not to do something stupid. Over the years, people have found that certain things don’t mix well: alcohol & weapons; alcohol & anger; anger & weapons; etc, etc.

Prob with all this is that we still have the criminal element screwing things up too.

>Shannon’s football players should obey their coach if they want to be a Hurricane.

That may be so, but let’s come back to that assertion.

>This isn’t about Right To Carry, these players are students at school(college).

Ahh, but it most certainly is. The “school” is a part of the gooferment. It’s a corporation chartered by the gooferment, run by government bureaucrats, and funded from money stolen from the taxpayers. (I assume no argument there?)

The Constitution, the found document, says “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged”. Seems very clear to me. Shannon, a gooferment bureaucrat, has violated the Constitution and “abridged” the player’s freedom. AND, since any loss of freedom by anyone anywhere, is a loss of my freedom to me. See “chilling effect”.

> Their loyalty should be to their school

Loyalty to their gooferment entity? Please, you can have any hierarchy you want God, family, self, neighbor. Gooferment is no where on mine. It’s supposed to be a small servant; not the replacement for God.

>The problem is that their “off-field” conduct is considered “cool,” and it really isn’t.

No the problem is that we have become a nation of fools, intimidated sheep, and possibly cowards.

> Apparently, certain UofM players believe that they don’t have to obey the rules.

People, as in the Dead Old White Guys concept of “The People”, are sovereign. They only have to obey such “rules” that they consent to. You remember “consent of the governed”? Their liberty is only restricted to the boundary of another’s liberty. Hence as long as they don’t initiate force on another person, there are no “rules” unless they agree to be bound by a rule, contract, or other agreement. imho

>Well, there’s a sheriff in town and his name is Shannon, and they have to play by his rules.

No, there is a new government thug in town, who believes that he knows what is right for the masters serfs.

>

We’ll just have to agree to disagree agreeably. Thanks for a fun conversation. Let’s spar some more some time.

>

And, thanks so much for the comment.
fjohn

Well, there’s a sheriff in town and his name is Shannon, and they have to play by his rules.