Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class
- Thread starter Ozzieman
- Start date
- Status
Glenn:
My comment about the lady being "barred forever" from any teaching position might have been somewhat extreme, however were I a parent, I'm not, and any college or university a child of mine might be attending hired people such as this lady in an instructional capacity, freedom of speech not withstanding, she seemingly has some odd views thereon, I would seriously consider moving my kid to another school, and or having a word with officials where he/she was a student.
My comment about the lady being "barred forever" from any teaching position might have been somewhat extreme, however were I a parent, I'm not, and any college or university a child of mine might be attending hired people such as this lady in an instructional capacity, freedom of speech not withstanding, she seemingly has some odd views thereon, I would seriously consider moving my kid to another school, and or having a word with officials where he/she was a student.
In truth by the time they hit college the indoctrination by public schools
have done it's work,I have family both in high school teaching and college,
as I said before many good teachers but the system is bias in text books
and management. My advice to parents if you can send your kids to private
school and/or home school, college is another matter it is difficult for in my
opinion the liberal left bug has infested our military academies to some degree.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I understand, Alan. No problem. Certainly, as a consumer - one can register protests about the quality of a product. Also, about the actions of someone. I would certainly demand such in this case.
I was just commenting on banning forever - I'm sure that the professor in question has been talked to about common sense.
On the other hand, I've seen schools blow off the fears about seriously disturbed kids because they are scared of lawsuits from Mom and Dad. VT certainly screwed up dealing with Cho.
It's a difficult call and we are going to get messes at both ends of the predictive spectrum.
I was just commenting on banning forever - I'm sure that the professor in question has been talked to about common sense.
On the other hand, I've seen schools blow off the fears about seriously disturbed kids because they are scared of lawsuits from Mom and Dad. VT certainly screwed up dealing with Cho.
It's a difficult call and we are going to get messes at both ends of the predictive spectrum.
Glen, I placed this thread because I thought that others would be interested is reading the article.
I am not an educated man like your self and drink beer instead of wine so I guess that make me un-refined.
And I don’t even know what “more nuanced look at” means.
“No, not you, theotherTexasRich. I was just commenting on the throw-away earlier lines that overgeneralized about academics. Sorry, if I came across as cranky. I sometimes get discouraged by some gun forum rhetoric. Something negative happens and it is the end of the world. On about 4 different places, I frequent somebody says - See, there's no hope for colleges!!”
I guess that last comment was directed at me for my end of the world and bury my guns attitude that you seem to think that I have.
I would like to apologize for being the cause of making you come off as cranky due to my comments that were directed against liberal educators and not educators in general, maybe I was a little to end of the world.
Since you are staff and in control of this forum and you consider my input as forum rhetoric, and drive by, I will refrain from commenting further from this time onward.
Again, my apologies to every one, from an uneducated, unrefined, end of the world, bury your guns pro-gun person.
I am not an educated man like your self and drink beer instead of wine so I guess that make me un-refined.
And I don’t even know what “more nuanced look at” means.
“No, not you, theotherTexasRich. I was just commenting on the throw-away earlier lines that overgeneralized about academics. Sorry, if I came across as cranky. I sometimes get discouraged by some gun forum rhetoric. Something negative happens and it is the end of the world. On about 4 different places, I frequent somebody says - See, there's no hope for colleges!!”
I guess that last comment was directed at me for my end of the world and bury my guns attitude that you seem to think that I have.
I would like to apologize for being the cause of making you come off as cranky due to my comments that were directed against liberal educators and not educators in general, maybe I was a little to end of the world.
Since you are staff and in control of this forum and you consider my input as forum rhetoric, and drive by, I will refrain from commenting further from this time onward.
Again, my apologies to every one, from an uneducated, unrefined, end of the world, bury your guns pro-gun person.
Let's put this back on track and into perspective
The issue here is not a 2A issue, as I see it. It is a First Amendment issue. The student did not come into class with a gun, just with an idea. The professor, from a position of authority, used her position to intimidate the student for advocating campus carry. The professor said that she was just exercising caution in bringing this to the attention of the campus police.
Hockey Puck!
Does anyone really believe that, had the student advocated legalization of marijuana, the professor would have called ATF in the name of caution? What if the student advocated gun control? Would the good professor have alerted the campus police because guns were mentioned?
This is a clear case of (a) liberal harassment of an idea they disagree with, and (b) liberal hypocrisy about freedom of speech on campus. This is how Columbia University can justify putting jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinijad on the dais in the name of free speech, but forbidding ROTC or military recruiters the same courtesy.
Wake up and smell the book mold!
The issue here is not a 2A issue, as I see it. It is a First Amendment issue. The student did not come into class with a gun, just with an idea. The professor, from a position of authority, used her position to intimidate the student for advocating campus carry. The professor said that she was just exercising caution in bringing this to the attention of the campus police.
Hockey Puck!
Does anyone really believe that, had the student advocated legalization of marijuana, the professor would have called ATF in the name of caution? What if the student advocated gun control? Would the good professor have alerted the campus police because guns were mentioned?
This is a clear case of (a) liberal harassment of an idea they disagree with, and (b) liberal hypocrisy about freedom of speech on campus. This is how Columbia University can justify putting jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinijad on the dais in the name of free speech, but forbidding ROTC or military recruiters the same courtesy.
Wake up and smell the book mold!
Some things just is II
Ozzieman -
Isn't "gun forum rhetoric" what we do here? Or am I mistaken that this is a GUN FORUM? I'd really like to see you forgive Glenn - you have to realize that dispite being a most excellent genius gun rights advocate, he is also a liberal. So don't let the turkeys get you down (just a figure of speach) and please sleep on it and rethink "will refrain from commenting further from this time onward" We want you around.
Ozzieman -
Isn't "gun forum rhetoric" what we do here? Or am I mistaken that this is a GUN FORUM? I'd really like to see you forgive Glenn - you have to realize that dispite being a most excellent genius gun rights advocate, he is also a liberal. So don't let the turkeys get you down (just a figure of speach) and please sleep on it and rethink "will refrain from commenting further from this time onward" We want you around.
Rich Miranda
New member
You can't shoot and kill 33 people with a joint. Is there a reason anyone should feel their lives could be in immediate danger from marijuana?
No, because the student's position would coincide with the misinformation the professor has absorbed through osmosis over her lifetime.
I disagree. People are scared. Scared people overreact. To eliminate the overreaction, one must remove the fears and insecurities.
As I said earlier, spreading real, factual information is the key. Right now there are no readily available (to non-gun aficionados) sources of positive information regarding firearms.
IMO, this is a faulty comparison fallacy.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
theotherTexasRich said:
Great point that Glenn alluded to earlier. VA Tech got a lot of heat (rightfully so IMO) over the fact that Cho showed warning signs and they wer not taken seriously.
The problem as always with pendulums is that they swing too far. In this case it did. I am sure that the paper/speech given by this student in no way resembled some of Cho's rantings at VA Tech but that could be remedied by educating some school personnel about warning signs to take seriously.
Since I am not a psychologist I couldn neither tell you what those warning signs would be nor could I thread the needle between the warning signs and civil liberties either. Let's see what others say.
How is this a "faulty fallacy?" Both Ahmadinijad and the US military are advocating their point of view to students, but the administration of the University is apparently more concerned about the impact of those who are entrusted with the security of our nation than those that want to destroy it.th
At the end of the little bastard's speech, the Columbia moderator said, "But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate."
Unless, of course, you are a member of the military who preserve and protect our precious freedoms.
It is a classic case of knee-jerk liberal hypocrisy.
And, that, is the "truthful truth." (since we are doing double affirmations.)
Now, before anyone gets their mortarboard in a knot, there are also instances of conservative hypocrisy, but we are not discussing them in this thread.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
TG - there are NO good predictive signs that don't generate many false positives.
The best we have is:
1. Owning weapons and a fascination with such (oh, dear)
AND
2. Making threats
That should get you a close look. The causal factors that lead to a rampage are not good predictors as for most they are unknowable by others before the rampage. We do know that seemingly arbitrary disciplinary actions that disrespect unstable people can be a prime for violence. As is bullying (more a high school thing). Coupled with depression or other disorders gives you a dangerous package but that is in a small percent of those who have gone through such. Schools are reluctant to deal with bullying because sometimes the bullying is done by the value 'alpha' males of the school.
To get folks to turn in folks who show the two signs is difficult. Young people are very oriented towards social groups and reluctant to turn in peers. Schools are reluctant to act because of civil rights concerns and law suits.
Let's say the next professor gets a paper on student carry but in the body of the paper - the kid sounds disturbed in some manner - what does that prof do?
That's why it is a difficult problem. Cho was really obvious and the school blew his threat off.
Since prediction is a bear - we advocate that folks be allowed to carry on campus. However, that unleashes other issues.
1. Are students a peculiar risk if allowed to carry? Mature, immature, etc. There are older students vs. drunks in the dorms.
2. Carrying on campus - what are the responsibilities of the fac/staff carrier - are they pseudo-LEOs? This is an issue if the school explicitly allows carry as compared to it being a state law. The former implies an approved agency of the school rather than just being an armed citizen.
3. Training - this drives me wild. If you argue for carry on campus to specifically stop rampages - should you have a modicum of training for a high intensity gun fight and stress? I see posturing paper target and rock shooters want to carry on campus. Well, I think they should if state laws allow general CCW on campus. If they want special agency, as a guardian, then get your butt into training. If I were a cost / legal concerned administrator and you came to me and said - I want to carry, blah,blah, RKBA, blah, Blah - VT, Blah, blah - I might say back - well, how skilled are you? The reply, I shoot at rocks in the country. -- That will get you laughed at.
For me, the optimal solution is for state legislatures to null bans on carry on campuses (the great private property argument). The armed person on campus as no more responsibility than in the mall or church.
As for other comments - I repeat my position that I don't accept blanket rants that colleges are all - blah, blah, blah. All professors stink - blah, blah, blah. All Liberals - blah, blah, blah. Not productive and in fact, counterproductive if you want to make the RKBA case.
My sig article came out of a campus discussion about gun rights and the Pink Pistols on our school chat system. Then the NTI folks asked me to wirte it up. Harper's magazine had an article on why progressives should support gun rights - one major point was the fear of tyranny from the right.
The best we have is:
1. Owning weapons and a fascination with such (oh, dear)
AND
2. Making threats
That should get you a close look. The causal factors that lead to a rampage are not good predictors as for most they are unknowable by others before the rampage. We do know that seemingly arbitrary disciplinary actions that disrespect unstable people can be a prime for violence. As is bullying (more a high school thing). Coupled with depression or other disorders gives you a dangerous package but that is in a small percent of those who have gone through such. Schools are reluctant to deal with bullying because sometimes the bullying is done by the value 'alpha' males of the school.
To get folks to turn in folks who show the two signs is difficult. Young people are very oriented towards social groups and reluctant to turn in peers. Schools are reluctant to act because of civil rights concerns and law suits.
Let's say the next professor gets a paper on student carry but in the body of the paper - the kid sounds disturbed in some manner - what does that prof do?
That's why it is a difficult problem. Cho was really obvious and the school blew his threat off.
Since prediction is a bear - we advocate that folks be allowed to carry on campus. However, that unleashes other issues.
1. Are students a peculiar risk if allowed to carry? Mature, immature, etc. There are older students vs. drunks in the dorms.
2. Carrying on campus - what are the responsibilities of the fac/staff carrier - are they pseudo-LEOs? This is an issue if the school explicitly allows carry as compared to it being a state law. The former implies an approved agency of the school rather than just being an armed citizen.
3. Training - this drives me wild. If you argue for carry on campus to specifically stop rampages - should you have a modicum of training for a high intensity gun fight and stress? I see posturing paper target and rock shooters want to carry on campus. Well, I think they should if state laws allow general CCW on campus. If they want special agency, as a guardian, then get your butt into training. If I were a cost / legal concerned administrator and you came to me and said - I want to carry, blah,blah, RKBA, blah, Blah - VT, Blah, blah - I might say back - well, how skilled are you? The reply, I shoot at rocks in the country. -- That will get you laughed at.
For me, the optimal solution is for state legislatures to null bans on carry on campuses (the great private property argument). The armed person on campus as no more responsibility than in the mall or church.
As for other comments - I repeat my position that I don't accept blanket rants that colleges are all - blah, blah, blah. All professors stink - blah, blah, blah. All Liberals - blah, blah, blah. Not productive and in fact, counterproductive if you want to make the RKBA case.
My sig article came out of a campus discussion about gun rights and the Pink Pistols on our school chat system. Then the NTI folks asked me to wirte it up. Harper's magazine had an article on why progressives should support gun rights - one major point was the fear of tyranny from the right.
GM - Your excellent articles and the thoughtful posts are on target, but I would like to offer one thought. I don't see the purpose of allowing properly licensed students or faculty to carry on campus to be any different than any other purpose for carrying a weapon.
A citizen is licensed to carry for one reason, and only one reason - for personal protection. LEOs have a totally different mission - to protect and defend. They are trained equipped and tasked to support this mission. For example, LEOs entering a situation would have body armor, which private citizens do not walk around wearing. This drastically changes the tactics that are available.
I would not expect an armed citizen to use their weapon in a proactive manner in defense of others, nor do I even think it is desirable. But, the fact is, that a citizen who does act in defense of their own person, will likely neutralize the threat, saving others in the process. Without proper training in "protecting and defending," an armed citizen could cause more damage to their self or others.
A citizen is licensed to carry for one reason, and only one reason - for personal protection. LEOs have a totally different mission - to protect and defend. They are trained equipped and tasked to support this mission. For example, LEOs entering a situation would have body armor, which private citizens do not walk around wearing. This drastically changes the tactics that are available.
I would not expect an armed citizen to use their weapon in a proactive manner in defense of others, nor do I even think it is desirable. But, the fact is, that a citizen who does act in defense of their own person, will likely neutralize the threat, saving others in the process. Without proper training in "protecting and defending," an armed citizen could cause more damage to their self or others.
Good discussion
Well, I am heartened by reading another lively and thoughtful discussion about our right to bear arms and the nature of the political and psychological context in our country on this issue.
FWIW I am a clinical psychologist and on the faculty of a major medical school. I have had guns all my life since my brother taught me gun safety, and I started shooting our .22 rifle at the age of 5. My son goes to a liberal arts university and enjoys shooting with his father. My experience is that the tendency for polarized debate occurs in the academic world much like everywhere else. There is thoughtful discussion, but also emotionally-driven reactivity and stereotyping.
Part of what Glenn Meyer does IMO is to help reduce some of the reactivity by providing education to, hopefully, a broad base of people. If we want to have greater relevance and credibility we have to engage in dialogue with those who are on the other side of the table, or sitting on the fence, regarding the right to bear arms and safety in America. We have to try to understand what they are afraid of and respond to their fears. If a person's son or daughter had been at Virginia Tech during the killings wouldn't it be understandable that he/she would be angry about the ease of accessibility to guns by unstable people?
We have to expand our discussion beyond just "preaching to the choir" of our own group of gun enthusiasts. We need to find ways to create dialogue with a greater range of people and help reduce the stereotypes and caricatures that many people have of us.
Well, I am heartened by reading another lively and thoughtful discussion about our right to bear arms and the nature of the political and psychological context in our country on this issue.
FWIW I am a clinical psychologist and on the faculty of a major medical school. I have had guns all my life since my brother taught me gun safety, and I started shooting our .22 rifle at the age of 5. My son goes to a liberal arts university and enjoys shooting with his father. My experience is that the tendency for polarized debate occurs in the academic world much like everywhere else. There is thoughtful discussion, but also emotionally-driven reactivity and stereotyping.
Part of what Glenn Meyer does IMO is to help reduce some of the reactivity by providing education to, hopefully, a broad base of people. If we want to have greater relevance and credibility we have to engage in dialogue with those who are on the other side of the table, or sitting on the fence, regarding the right to bear arms and safety in America. We have to try to understand what they are afraid of and respond to their fears. If a person's son or daughter had been at Virginia Tech during the killings wouldn't it be understandable that he/she would be angry about the ease of accessibility to guns by unstable people?
We have to expand our discussion beyond just "preaching to the choir" of our own group of gun enthusiasts. We need to find ways to create dialogue with a greater range of people and help reduce the stereotypes and caricatures that many people have of us.
Last edited:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
fomalley said:
Yes, exactly.
One good place to start might be by not overreacting to stories like this. The professor was concerned about a student's statements and reported her concern to the campus police, who asked him to come in and speak with them. They queried him about where his guns were kept and were satisfied with his answer. End of story.
Did the professor overreact? Probably, but given the recent number of mass shootings, her reaction was understandable in a non-gun person. Did the campus police overreact? Of course not. Asking him to come in and speak with them face to face seems reasonable; I'm sure they were also very alert to whether he came across as disturbed in any way -- interviewing him in person would, it seems to me, give them a better sense of his mental state than they'd get from a phone conversation.
To try to blow this up into a huge 1st amendment issue, turn it into yet another excuse for liberal-bashing, etc., seems to me to be a good way to perpetuate those stereotypes and caricatures.
Glenn is right that prediction, in these cases, is very problematic. But while permitting concealed carry on campuses might reduce casualties in a future incident, I don't think it will do a thing to prevent one; the people who do this stuff aren't rational and are not likely to be deterred by the fact that others around them may be armed.
So aren't a few false positives, of exactly this kind, a reasonable trade-off for even one good catch of a disturbed individual with a hit list and a closet full of pawnshop guns? I'd rather see the campus police politely interview a few people and find that one guy than have us wind up saying, "Oh, well, he only shot 7 people, not 30, before the guy with the CC permit and the handgun shot him!" and then try to call that a victory for our side...
But, this is exactly the point, dragging (I know this is an emotionally loaded word) someone in to explain themselves for a point of view is intimidation, pure and simple.
Of course, we don't have the benefit of seeing the details of the presentation that caused the big to-do, so I am assuming that, since both the professor and the student are consistent in stating that the presentation was only exploring the notion of whether concealed carry on campus would be beneficial.
But, assuming that there was nothing incendiary in the presentation, this is a blatant example of using power to intimidate. There is no other way to look at it. What if the student had said he was a Republican, or a Mormon, or a vegetarian, and the campus police questioned him on it? You don't think that is a violation of his civil rights? If you don't, then you better go back and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Think about the impact on the student body. "Hey, I hear Johnny had his butt drug in and was grilled about his presentation about guns on campus."
"Really, well, I guess we better not mention 'guns' on campus anymore, unless you want to talk to Officer Krupke."
This is not Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, people are allowed to hold and express non-violent political positions without being harassed by the campus administration or its police force.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
gretske said:
Gretske, if you read the story linked in the first post, you know that they weren't questioning him on his views. They were questioning him on where he kept his guns, as he was prohibited from keeping them on campus. I assume that their first step was finding out that he did indeed own guns, which would have raised its own "red flag;" see Glenn Meyer's post about predictive factors. Now think about the position the campus police, in particular, would have been in, if they had not acted on the professor's concerns, and Mr. Wahlberg had turned out to be another Cho.
Please note that I DO think that Professor Anderson overreacted, especially given that academic freedom is something I take very seriously. The campus police? Not so much. Once they were notified -- rightly or wrongly -- of a concern that a student might pose a risk to public safety, they had an obligation to check him out, I think.
And, yes, "dragging" is an emotionally loaded word. So are "Nazi Germany..." etc. See fomalley's point above about emotional reactivity and stereotyping.
Last edited:
Hmm?
Glenn –
Nice thesis. Some thoughts –
That’s because we are all positives, falsely so sometimes but all with the capacity of true positiveness.
We all own weapons and are fascinated with them (guns, size, attitude, authority, power, intellect, knowledge, ownership, etc) and we all, from time to time at least, make threats using our weapons. In the case in point, the professor used her authority and position to initiate a threat to the student.
We all are also threatened by ideas and discomforts. This is when we usually display or at least prepare to display one or more of our weapons. If you display a gun over an idea or a simple discomfort, it is illegal. Displaying other weapons is usually not illegal. The idea of someone thinking that possession of fire arms on campus by non-LEs is very threatening to some.
Arbitrary disciplinary actions are bullying.
We all are capable of instability, especially when disrespected and/or threatened with bullying, i.e., using a gun to protect self or others, threatening a student for stating an opinion, etc.
Instability can be fleeting and whether fleeting or not can be dangerous.
“seemingly” Ah, now there’s the rub!
Is this not a problem that could/should be corrected? How about alpha females? Alpha professors?
“sounds disturbed” On what basis? What are the factors?
Are people who are allowed to carry or even to possess firearms mature, immature, older, younger or drinkers?
My state could disallow bans on weapons at public schools (carry and or no carry), but not on private campuses. This is one reason (making up their own rules), that several public schools in my state are trying to devise methods to achieve autonomy from state government control while yet remaining on the dole.
In addition –
I believe that your criticism of VT is overly harsh and a little over the top. The primary failures had to do with the subject of your thesis on how to determine threat, the conflicts of privacy issues with reporting of information between various agencies, and misjudgments by a lot of people including many out side of VT. We can easily tell by the scrambling going on at schools across the country that VT is not the only one now working hard to repair deficiencies. I vote to give them a break.
Glenn –
Nice thesis. Some thoughts –
That’s because we are all positives, falsely so sometimes but all with the capacity of true positiveness.
We all own weapons and are fascinated with them (guns, size, attitude, authority, power, intellect, knowledge, ownership, etc) and we all, from time to time at least, make threats using our weapons. In the case in point, the professor used her authority and position to initiate a threat to the student.
We all are also threatened by ideas and discomforts. This is when we usually display or at least prepare to display one or more of our weapons. If you display a gun over an idea or a simple discomfort, it is illegal. Displaying other weapons is usually not illegal. The idea of someone thinking that possession of fire arms on campus by non-LEs is very threatening to some.
Arbitrary disciplinary actions are bullying.
We all are capable of instability, especially when disrespected and/or threatened with bullying, i.e., using a gun to protect self or others, threatening a student for stating an opinion, etc.
Instability can be fleeting and whether fleeting or not can be dangerous.
“seemingly” Ah, now there’s the rub!
Is this not a problem that could/should be corrected? How about alpha females? Alpha professors?
“sounds disturbed” On what basis? What are the factors?
Are people who are allowed to carry or even to possess firearms mature, immature, older, younger or drinkers?
My state could disallow bans on weapons at public schools (carry and or no carry), but not on private campuses. This is one reason (making up their own rules), that several public schools in my state are trying to devise methods to achieve autonomy from state government control while yet remaining on the dole.
In addition –
I believe that your criticism of VT is overly harsh and a little over the top. The primary failures had to do with the subject of your thesis on how to determine threat, the conflicts of privacy issues with reporting of information between various agencies, and misjudgments by a lot of people including many out side of VT. We can easily tell by the scrambling going on at schools across the country that VT is not the only one now working hard to repair deficiencies. I vote to give them a break.
Views
Vanya-
The police may not have questioned his views (we really don't know), but they were questioning him BECAUSE he expressed those views. He didn’t and doesn’t owe them the answer to the questions of whether or not he owned guns and where he kept them. He obviously already knew that guns are banned on campus (that is why he expounded his views). Did they have reason to suspect that he had them on campus other than his expressed views? If so, get a search warrant if needed (not sure what their rules are for search dorms) and take a look. The professor and the campus police all bullied, intimidated, and disrespected the student. I sure hope and pray that their acts of disrespecting him don’t have a snap impact on him. Whose fault would that be?
There are definitely several sides to this incident. Some were intimidated by uninformed ideas and unfounded fears, while one was intimidated by authorities. The authorities get no pass on this from “being careful”.
Vanya-
The police may not have questioned his views (we really don't know), but they were questioning him BECAUSE he expressed those views. He didn’t and doesn’t owe them the answer to the questions of whether or not he owned guns and where he kept them. He obviously already knew that guns are banned on campus (that is why he expounded his views). Did they have reason to suspect that he had them on campus other than his expressed views? If so, get a search warrant if needed (not sure what their rules are for search dorms) and take a look. The professor and the campus police all bullied, intimidated, and disrespected the student. I sure hope and pray that their acts of disrespecting him don’t have a snap impact on him. Whose fault would that be?
There are definitely several sides to this incident. Some were intimidated by uninformed ideas and unfounded fears, while one was intimidated by authorities. The authorities get no pass on this from “being careful”.
Vanya -
I did read the article and have followed other press coverage since I am a journalist. And, I understand what you are saying, but I have serious rights concerns whenever people are subjected to scrutiny by law enforcement because of their views. And, ONLY for their views.
Start with this, what is the probable cause (a legal requirement for detention and/or questioning) in this case? That the student wrote a paper suggesting that guns should be allowed on campus? Remember, no threat was made or implied.
I wrote a letter to the editor which was published today rebutting an editorial that the law should require guns kept in people's homes to be locked at all times. Should the sheriff have the right to pick me up and question me about my gun ownership because of the public position I took? This is exactly what happens in a totalitarian country. People are harassed, and called to account for opinions, in an attempt to quell public resistance to the government. My examples of Nazi Germany, etc. was appropriate and accurate, in my opinion.
After you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I assigned you, ;-) might want to read Judge Andrew Napoliano's book, "Constitutional Chaos." He makes the most compelling case for safeguarding civil rights that I have ever seen.
I do appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussion.
I did read the article and have followed other press coverage since I am a journalist. And, I understand what you are saying, but I have serious rights concerns whenever people are subjected to scrutiny by law enforcement because of their views. And, ONLY for their views.
Start with this, what is the probable cause (a legal requirement for detention and/or questioning) in this case? That the student wrote a paper suggesting that guns should be allowed on campus? Remember, no threat was made or implied.
I wrote a letter to the editor which was published today rebutting an editorial that the law should require guns kept in people's homes to be locked at all times. Should the sheriff have the right to pick me up and question me about my gun ownership because of the public position I took? This is exactly what happens in a totalitarian country. People are harassed, and called to account for opinions, in an attempt to quell public resistance to the government. My examples of Nazi Germany, etc. was appropriate and accurate, in my opinion.
After you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I assigned you, ;-) might want to read Judge Andrew Napoliano's book, "Constitutional Chaos." He makes the most compelling case for safeguarding civil rights that I have ever seen.
I do appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussion.
Last edited:
- Status