The mind of an academic anti-gun professor

[rawhide]

While I agree with henchman's statements, the professor's argument in his article is that the presence of firearms will stifle other freedoms like free speech. But, he fails to mention the stifling of free speech that is well documented on many college campuses with free speech zones.

 

[ByrdC130]

" While the armored vehicles may be an appropriate symbol for the armory, they create an unfortunate and unwelcoming entrance to campus. Each day students, faculty, and staff are greeted with an image of violence and aggression that is unsuitable for an academic setting. "

Military hardware denotes violence and aggression? No way that those machines could have been used in DEFENSE from violence and aggression? Hope that someday he gets to realize that many "violent and aggressive" soldiers laid down their lives to keep his benevolent and fostering self free.

 

[toehanus]

Our school mascot sports a Ruger Blackhawk,,,
One of our professors objected to him attending an official event in our building.


.

I wonder how long it is til Pistol Pete becomes Rape Whistle Pete or 911 Pete or Felony Conviction Pete.

I also work at a university and I can assure you that it is way worse here than at your shop. When open carry went into effect we had a section meeting and some individuals were almost in tears about the impending doom that would happen due to people carrying guns openly. I was smiling on the inside. If only they knew.


www.infinityok.net

 

[henschman]

One wonderful thing about negative liberty is that rights never conflict with one another or "stifle" one another... if your behavior infringes on someone else's negative liberty, it ceases to be a right and others are justified in defending themselves against your aggression. Short of that, people may not like what you do, but no one has any right to keep you from it. The fact is, it is possible to carry around a gun without threatening or harming anyone in any way. Many of us do it every day. I have carried one for many years... I even carried in some classrooms during my college years... and near as I can tell, I never "stifled" or infringed on anyone else's rights in so doing. In fact, I was ready to protect the lives of those around me if necessary.

Don't let anyone get away with telling you that your choice to carry a gun infringes on their rights. It may infringe on their feelings, but rights are not determined by people's feelings. These antis and other associated weenies are attempting to institute some sort of emotocracy, in which everyone's rights are subject to the lowest common denominator of the most timid souls among us. If that view prevails, the rights of man will be very few indeed.

 

[rawhide]

Well said

 

[pistolpete2002]

One wonderful thing about negative liberty is that rights never conflict with one another or "stifle" one another... if your behavior infringes on someone else's negative liberty, it ceases to be a right and others are justified in defending themselves against your aggression. Short of that, people may not like what you do, but no one has any right to keep you from it. The fact is, it is possible to carry around a gun without threatening or harming anyone in any way. Many of us do it every day. I have carried one for many years... I even carried in some classrooms during my college years... and near as I can tell, I never "stifled" or infringed on anyone else's rights in so doing. In fact, I was ready to protect the lives of those around me if necessary.

Don't let anyone get away with telling you that your choice to carry a gun infringes on their rights. It may infringe on their feelings, but rights are not determined by people's feelings. These antis and other associated weenies are attempting to institute some sort of emotocracy, in which everyone's rights are subject to the lowest common denominator of the most timid souls among us. If that view prevails, the rights of man will be very few indeed.

Very well said!

 

[jakeman]

One wonderful thing about negative liberty is that rights never conflict with one another or "stifle" one another... if your behavior infringes on someone else's negative liberty, it ceases to be a right and others are justified in defending themselves against your aggression. Short of that, people may not like what you do, but no one has any right to keep you from it. The fact is, it is possible to carry around a gun without threatening or harming anyone in any way. Many of us do it every day. I have carried one for many years... I even carried in some classrooms during my college years... and near as I can tell, I never "stifled" or infringed on anyone else's rights in so doing. In fact, I was ready to protect the lives of those around me if necessary.

Don't let anyone get away with telling you that your choice to carry a gun infringes on their rights. It may infringe on their feelings, but rights are not determined by people's feelings. These antis and other associated weenies are attempting to institute some sort of emotocracy, in which everyone's rights are subject to the lowest common denominator of the most timid souls among us. If that view prevails, the rights of man will be very few indeed.

Quoted for it's excellence.

 

[settingsun]

put him in a Detroit neighborhood and see if he changes his mind

 

[tulsamal]

They do tend to embody the whole "educated idiot" thing.

Let's not paint with too broad a brush. I was a professor teaching US Government classes at OU and then at RSC in Claremore. Not all academics or professors fit your stereotype.

 

[Glocktogo]

Let's not paint with too broad a brush. I was a professor teaching US Government classes at OU and then at RSC in Claremore. Not all academics or professors fit your stereotype.

It fits the one in question. If it doesn't fit you personally, then don't wear it.