Skip to main content

Talking about concealed weapons is apparently not protected speech...

From The Daily Campus:

Recently, at Central Connecticut State University, a student was brought into the police station after he gave a class presentation about carrying concealed handguns on campus. What was his transgression? He dared to talk about guns in class, which made his classmates feel "scared and uncomfortable" according to his professor.

John Wahlberg was in Paula Anderson's introductory public speaking class when the students received an assignment to make a presentation about a "relevant issue in the media." Given the fierce debate about whether or not students and professors should be allowed to carry weapons on campus - ignited by the fatal shootings at Virginia Tech - Wahlberg thought that concealed carry was an appropriate topic for class. It is important to note that while Wahlberg is a gun owner and a Second Amendment advocate, he never threatened to harm anyone during his presentation.

After giving the presentation - during which he advocated for students' right to bear arms - Wahlberg went to work, where he was told that he needed to go to the police station. At the station, officers questioned him about how many guns he owned and where he kept them.

This is just absurd. A student expresses his views about the Second Amendment under his First Amendment rights and is sent to the police for questioning because of it? It is also important to note that students did not complain about Wahlberg's presentation; the only person who reported feeling uncomfortable was the professor.

The scariest thing about all of this is that Anderson claims to have acted after receiving guidance and consultation from her department chair and the dean of her department. One would hope that someone in a position of power would see the absurdity of Anderson's reaction, but clearly that was not the case at CCSU.


Hopefully, one does not have to be a Second Amendment advocate in order to feel uncomfortable about this university's response.

But, sadly, I know better.

[h/t Alphecca]

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve,

1) You don't know what Wahlberg actually said.
2) You don't know how he said it.
3) You don't know what his relationship was with the professor or classmates.
4) You don't know what his university relationships were.
5) You don't know his medical or psychological history.
6) You don't know how many guns he owned or if he was bringing them on campus.

My point is that there is potentially so much more to this story than is or can be publicly known that to condemn the professor for reporting this to the police with just the facts you have is pretty lame. With the historical context of mass murders at Columbine and Virginia Tech and not having all of the facts, I can't fault the professor for being extra cautious.

I am sure you can imagine circumstances where you would feel it necessary to report this type of incident to campus authorities, but the information that might inspire you to do so could not be made public (psychological history or veiled threats, for example) .

I hope that the professor was doing the right thing here. I don't think you or I have enough information to judge.

anonone
Anonymous said…
A1,
This goes directly to your stupidity. False trust and hope.

"I hope that the professor was doing the right thing here. I don't think you or I have enough information to judge."

When you offer criticism, do your homework, do not just think that you can get away with suggesting and fabricating alternatives not entered in fact.

There are many people, ready, willing and able to restrict our rights, and disarm us, and leave us in harms way, under the disguise of justice, a police force and a court system, that really does not protect us.

You are an idiot.

I am,
A responsible citizen who refuses to be a victim. Defense means being able to repel a threat.
It is not offensive behavior.

What is offensive to liberals, is that there are people, who act responsibly, take their own security and survival personally, and do not stupidly believe in reliance on a Socialistic and pandering Government that promises utopia.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...