Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:15 pm to Tigersessed
If BO is a Christian, and makes a rule that all players must worship Christ on their own time, and that Atheism or other faiths are prohibited. That would be an issue.
If he looked at the domestic violence issue and saw a pattern of black players and white women, and made a policy of no interracial relationships for his players. That would be an issue.
If he decided being a homosexual was too distracting for the team, an had a rule that all sexual relationships for players must be hetero. That's an issue.
He can say all my players cannot possess a handgun on campus, or at any school function including away games, they cannot possess a handgun at off season functions associated with the school or program. But to say you cannot abide by State and Federal law on your own time in your home off campus, can be a problem.
If he looked at the domestic violence issue and saw a pattern of black players and white women, and made a policy of no interracial relationships for his players. That would be an issue.
If he decided being a homosexual was too distracting for the team, an had a rule that all sexual relationships for players must be hetero. That's an issue.
He can say all my players cannot possess a handgun on campus, or at any school function including away games, they cannot possess a handgun at off season functions associated with the school or program. But to say you cannot abide by State and Federal law on your own time in your home off campus, can be a problem.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:15 pm to Stlox
I don't know what the current rulings are on flag burning. If there are State or Federal laws that prohibit flag burning, then he can. If the only issue is 1st Amendment rights, then he can not. Basically government employees have to follow public policy.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:19 pm to JAGsports
quote:
So are you saying that I can ignore a banks sign that says no firearms on or in bank grounds?
Are bank's public or private?
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:28 pm to JesusQuintana
I'm gonna bet that it's the same group that put the team on blast for exercising their "constitutional right" to protest last year.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:41 pm to reedus23
Bottom line is I don't think BO ever said they can't legally own a gun, other coaches gave the same answer and I don't thinks the UNIVERSITY allows handguns to be carried on campus period, not just the football program. Not sure about university policy on other guns. It all seems to be a non-issue raised only to create an issue where one doesn't exist. As was said, just win Saturday. That's all I give a shite about
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:44 pm to the808bass
I don't see the problem with this. We don't need to have the next Isaiah Crowell situation on our hands. Our dumpster fire already had enough trash to burn for the next couple years, let's not add more.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 12:50 pm to surgicalvenom
How long until this turns into a massive lawsuit?
Posted on 9/1/16 at 1:10 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
goofy second amendment debate.
He doesn't seem to have the intellectual wherewithal to add anything of substance to the conversation. Though, one could assert that he is an example of how dangerous firearms can be when they fall into the wrong hands.
This post was edited on 9/1/16 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 9/1/16 at 1:10 pm to BreakawayZou83
Here's the thing. Every coach that actually answered the question, after pestering from this douchebag said the same thing.
Although, strangely the redneck, hick frick only pushed the issue with Odom. Wonder why that is???
Although, strangely the redneck, hick frick only pushed the issue with Odom. Wonder why that is???
Posted on 9/1/16 at 1:12 pm to BreakawayZou83
As soon as the NRA backs the ACLU into a corner and forces them to file the lawsuit. And the ACLU will be forced to file otherwise they will look like they only care about "Liberal" violations of the constitution. This is just the kind of case the NRA has been waiting for, getting the ACLU to do their work.
Of course this could be misreporting. Maybe BO did not say you can't own a legal handgun, maybe he said it can't be on campus, which would be just fine. Sumlin did that exact thing when A&M voted to allow students to Carry and Conceal in classrooms. Sumlin said not his players, and that was perfectly fine.
Of course this could be misreporting. Maybe BO did not say you can't own a legal handgun, maybe he said it can't be on campus, which would be just fine. Sumlin did that exact thing when A&M voted to allow students to Carry and Conceal in classrooms. Sumlin said not his players, and that was perfectly fine.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 1:38 pm to Wtodd
Players are not prohibited from owning guns; the football players are prohibited from possessing handguns on campus.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 2:09 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
redneck, hick frick only pushed the issue with Odom. Wonder why that is???
Because Mizzou is driving clicks online.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 4:29 pm to JesusQuintana
I think what we need, is some clarification from BO.
One can't ban someone from legal gun ownership....... One can ban players, from bringing them to football related functions............ As someone correctly pointed out, this is exactly what Sumlin and A&M did.... Where was the outrage there?
One can't ban someone from legal gun ownership....... One can ban players, from bringing them to football related functions............ As someone correctly pointed out, this is exactly what Sumlin and A&M did.... Where was the outrage there?
Posted on 9/1/16 at 4:40 pm to SemperFi
What a bunch of stupid ducks getting their counts rustled over nothing this thread is.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 5:12 pm to TJJefferson
All BO can do is regulate football related functions. If a kid has guns at his parent's house and goes out to hunt on a weekend then how would BO regulate that or even know about it? I'm pretty sure Mizzou's campas is a gun free zone.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 5:44 pm to MIZZOU_JP
He won't and can't. And he never said that. I really wish people would actually read what BO said before they pop off or write articles. And I'm talking about twitterers.
Ironically, Fox took down the original story because it was flat out false. They have put out a new story. I suggest everyone read it. Bottom line. Neither BO or Mizzou ban ownership. Other Universities actually do. And of course, at the bottom of the article is a retraction of their previous erroneous story.
Ironically, Fox took down the original story because it was flat out false. They have put out a new story. I suggest everyone read it. Bottom line. Neither BO or Mizzou ban ownership. Other Universities actually do. And of course, at the bottom of the article is a retraction of their previous erroneous story.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 5:47 pm to reedus23
Posted on 9/1/16 at 6:17 pm to reedus23
"BO had better tell these boys, no protests!"
"BO has no right to tell these guys they can't own a gun!"
frick this shite, all of it.
Let's play fricking football.
"BO has no right to tell these guys they can't own a gun!"
frick this shite, all of it.
Let's play fricking football.
This post was edited on 9/1/16 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 9/1/16 at 8:41 pm to reedus23
quote:
Ironically, Fox took down the original story because it was flat out false. They have put out a new story. I suggest everyone read it. Bottom line. Neither BO or Mizzou ban ownership. Other Universities actually do. And of course, at the bottom of the article is a retraction of their previous erroneous story.
And there you have it. Scandalous, controversial headline for clickbait. Lazy reporting produces BS article. Pull BS article and bury the correction. Bunch of BS all the way around.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News