For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.
On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.
Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.
That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.
They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.
“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”
Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.
“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”
Wahlberg believes that her complaint was filed without good reason.
“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly nonthreatening matter. Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat,” Wahlberg said in response. “The actions of Professor Anderson made me so uncomfortable, that I didn’t attend several classes. The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.”
The university police were unavailable for comment.
“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”
-Shauna Simeone, Asst. Opinion Editor
NOTE: With the exception of commenters who can provide a valid CCSU email address, we are no longer accepting comments on this story.
Susie should be put in prison for promoting the restriction of a mans constitutional rights.
” Susie
February 27, 2009 • 7:04 pm
As a student at CCSU i am deeply concerned. I do not agree with Wahlberg and I believe he should be put in prison for saying such things. When someone speaks of promoting guns they are promoting MURDER and should be punished. I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.”
So Susie; you advocate the imprisonment of someone who voices an opinion which causes you concern.
That’s hardly what one might call democratic or reasonable now, is it?
You most certainly are NOT in favour of free speech, as by definition, applying a qualification removes that freedom.
How would YOU feel if you expressed an opinion that the termination of a pregnancy brought about by rape was OK & found yourself imprisoned because others said it was murder?
When you make the statement that promoting the carriage of firearms for self defence advocates murder, you show irrationality of the highest order, or do you consider that Police officers should also be disarmed?
I suggest both yourself & the “professor” spend a little time researching the DEFENSIVE use of firearms in the US prior to making any future statements on the subject.
Even the most biased research shows that guns save lives.
I’m sure you will also be dismayed to know that more women than men who own firearms do so for the purpose of self defence: 67% to 46%
From R. Smith: “This man deserves to be put into prison for his instigation of a classroom directly after school shootings occured.”
He instigated a classroom? What exactly does this mean and why should it mean prison-time?
From R. Smith: “I applaud the teacher for contacting the police as this man clearly fits the mold of Al Queda sleeper school shooting operative.”
I’m saddened to have to inform you that you’re both ignorant as well as hysterical – get an education, a Valium and a grip – in that order.
From R. Smith: “Gun rights groups are clearly outdated models based on past failures of social policy meant to protect the people.”
Newsflash: The people have always been meant to protect themselves – and still are. Even today, the police have zero legal obligation to come to any person’s assistance – see Castle Rock v. Gonzalez as well as Warren v. District of Columbia. You can keep any social policies designed to “protect me”.
From R. Smith: “They have no legal standing as law enforcement yet somehow believe they should be able to carry a gun in a school full of children, no less.”
We don’t think of ourselves as law-enforcement, but sorry, but we do have legal standing – we have legal concealed-permits issued by the state, for which we had to become trained to state-approved levels, pass an extensive criminal background check, etc. We have proven the nature of our law-abiding character – can you say the same, for example, of all of your colleagues with whom you work?
Also, how many university students would you describe as children? These are young adults you’re rather insultingly referring to as “children” – and I’m sure that some, like me, are not so young, so let’s drop the fake “It’s for the children” argument – that one ain’t gonna fly here, neighbor.
From R. Smith: “What if just one child would be shot innocently, taking away his future, because someone wanted to carry on campus.”
Find me a single instance in the past 50 years where any person with a state-issued concealed-carry permit at any university or college has ever shot an innocent person. Bet you can’t do it.
From R. Smith: “I think the stakes are grave here and the student who made a presentation advocating the constitution should be thrown in prison for corrupting our most sacred document.”
The stakes are graver than you might imagine if that’s how you think – he was using his guaranteed First Amendment rights to discuss the Second Amendment. Yeah, let’s throw in prison those naughty people with whom we disagree, right?
From R. Smith: “Let the police do their job. They did a fine job at Virginia Tech-look how many victims there could have been had it not been for the police.”
Wrong again – look at how many victims died because the police did nothing until the shooting was over.
From R. Smith: “As for the first amendment, free speech caused 9/11, it causes people to get abortions, and it’s responsible for more bad than good. Free speech about the second amendment causes countless number of police deaths and innocent children shootings each year.”
We’d better ban free speech on your planet if it does all that, then, but down here on Earth, in the USA, we’ve actually become rather fond of it. Silly of us, I know.
From R. Smith: “Haven’t we reached a time in our country where we can peacefully disarm and not talk about extreme idiologies? I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to evolve.”
Oh, we’d be delighted to join you ( a gun is darned heavy, you know) – but until the criminals stop considering disarmed people to be anything other than their victims, it ain’t going to happen.
This is asinine. I think campuses shouldn’t allow anyone and their grandma to pack heat, but if you’ve gone through the rigorous process and passed the background checks to get a Concealed Carry permit from your sheriff, you ought to be able to exercise that power in school. CCW-holders know the rules and know the liability of doing anything stupid with their firepower – I’d trust the holder of a permit just as much as I would a university police officer.
Legalize CCW on campuses – mass murders occur where nobody can defend themselves.
To Jane:
So, Wahlberg is a dangerous criminal because he gave a presentation about an alternate opinion regarding gun control? Get a clue! It’s not a crime to speak about positions that may be contrary to your own personal beliefs, and it’s not a crime to make a group of people “scared and uncomfortable.” The legalities get a little murky when a government agency interrogates a citizen based on their exercise of free speech. This is just another sad example where hysteria and paranoia overcame common sense.
To Jane Lowell:
As an American in Britain, I can assure you that banning guns has created larger problems. Only criminals carry them now, and knife crime is out of control.
Hey, Curtis; here’s a better quote:
“First they’ll abrogate the Second Amendment; second, they’ll be able ignore the First Amendment.”
“First the Second; second the First.”
“As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus. We really need to start banning guns in this country, the situation is out of control, Britain banned guns and look at how well they are doing”
Yeah, Jane, look how well they are doing. Crime has INCREASED, so now they want to tighten the screw further and ban….KNIVES! What a brilliant idea!
Are you on drugs? The man gave a presentation in a class on a hot topic. He didn’t bring a gun to school. He didn’t threaten anyone. Most importantly, he didn’t break any law. Therefore he is neither “dangerous” nor “criminal”, despite your ridiculous assertion.
Furthermore, I take offense to your hoplophobic discrimination against gun owners by labeling gun owners as “rednecks”. Who will you rail against next? black people? gays? immigrants? Save your hate speech for your next Klan rally.
The professor should be fired.
I am interested to know how the keystone cops got a list of this man’s firearms?
I bet all the people who are siding with the professor are just outraged, I said outraged, about terrorists overseas wiretaps and would never allow the government to see a list of books checked out by someone at the library.
As usual, on college campuses, the only protected speech is liberal speech. Look within yourselves and see what you are doing to young minds.
I certainly hope a very large lawsuit is coming.
I would had laughed at the police when they wanted to know where my legally owned firearms were.
I would have refused to talk to them, because they have nothing on me.
The teacher was obviously a left-wing nutjob who’s scared of anything that can fire a projectile.
So you DONT want legally trained citizens to protect the school?
INSTEAD you’d rather CONTINUE to let school shooters just kill everyone and noone is there to stop them!
It’s literally a free for all, like shooting dish in a barrel!
how ignorant can you possibly be!
The woman should be teaching pre-schoolers, not highschool or college.
She wanted a speech?She got one…he simply used the 1st ammendment to speak about the 2nd ammendment. I’ve personally sat and witnessed TONS of speeches i didnt like or agree with….but you didnt see ME calling the cops because i felt uncomfortable….
Maybe this will wake her up and she’ll get a taste of reality for once.
Gun Free Zones DO NOT WORK….they HAVENT EVER WORKED!
Because nearly every single school shooting has BEEN in a Gun Free Zone!!!
You cannot argue the facts!
More and more colleges ARE allowing concealed carry…because they realize the current preventative measures just ARENT WORKING…PERIOD.
I’d actually PREFER to have 1 or 2 students in my classroom with a firearm.
They HAVE to be FULLY TRAINED and LICENSED to operate it….SAME WAY as the police!
(except police have more tactical training and variety training)
Not to mention people with CCW MUST pass multiple background checks.
You give me a college with concealed carry allowed, i would HONESTLY feel safer.
Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Well, now you know what it is like living in a communist nation where informers drop a dime on you for thought crimes. This thing knew what it was doing. It disagreed with your very legal and level headed position and it misused it’s power to harm a student. Typical of fascists. That is what this is.
quote: “As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus.”
Someone is a “dangerous criminal” merely because they raise the subject of (legal) firearms-ownership? Just… wow. Retake your course in Logic, lady, because you just failed; you’re also prejudiced and guilty of stereotyping because of your association of rednecks with guns, so you can report for Sensitivity training too.
Oh, you might also want to retake English 101 – it should read “I applaud Paula for her bravery in reporting…” – not “I applaud Paula for her bravery to report”.
quote: “I do not agree with Wahlberg and I believe he should be put in prison for saying such things. When someone speaks of promoting guns they are promoting MURDER and should be punished. I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.”
So freedom of speech only applies when people say things with which you agree – otherwise they should be in prison? You fail as well, lady – you need to retake Civics 101 as well as Logic.
As for the professor – she failed her students. Her actions were beneath contempt, completely destroyed the trust relationship with her students which is vital to teaching/mentoring and has proven herself to be incapable of the open mind which any good teacher worth their salt should aim to achieve and maintain.
The excuse that she was in some way attempting to protect her students is totally hollow and I don’t believe this for a second. This was a blatant attempt to punish a student whose beliefs do not coincide with hers, and is the worst case of academic cowardice I have seen in many years.
Immediate termination of professor Paula Anderson is warranted and justified.
Benjamin Franklin was a terrorist.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin, 1775
What a joke. What a tyrannical place. What a bunch of pant wetting leftists.
The “professor” should be fired.
What the student expressed is on the minds of many people. This professor has made it very clear to her students that rather than defend themselves they have an obligation to submit to death willingly and without protest. The VA school shooting took place AFTER the school was made a “gun free zone.” This was done to “protect” the students. It is unfortunate that criminals do not obey the law.
Since it is proper to denounce a person to the Secret, oops Campus Police for speaking in support of the Second Amendment , it would also be proper to denounce someone advocating abortion, and insist they have a physical examination.
Let’s see how long that policy would last.
As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus. We really need to start banning guns in this country, the situation is out of control, Britain banned guns and look at how well they are doing.
Someone said if John had nothing to worry about he shouldn’t be worried.
Wrong.
If John refused to go to the station, I gaurentee you they would show up to his door.
http://www.pro2a.org
It’s simple: if you contribute money to this university, withdraw it until someone gets a copy of the Constitution for each and every faculty member, so that they can better remember why it is that we have the freedoms we do, freedoms that allow professors to sit around and milk money from the rest of the population for bullying their kids. Mr. Wahlberg, you should be getting a lawyer and filing an action over undue stress or anything else you can pile on. This is really, in truth, quite sad. As a former academic, I can assure you that I often went out of my way to hear and consider opposing viewpoints, and anyone suggesting otherwise or using the long arm of government to bully someone into silence should be run right out of a university, because he/she is most certainly not a scholar or thinker of any worth. This makes the university look like a third-rate community college with quibbling passive-aggressives for a faculty.
I don’t personally support Mr. Wahlberg’s ideas, but calling the campus police on him is ridiculous. He should be allowed to express his opinion if he pleases, and the people listening should respect them. Some kids and the teacher felt ‘nervous’. School shootings are an issue, and people need to look for an answer to them, not just ignore it so they feel better.
Perhaps, someone needs to remind said professor that filing a false or frivolous police complaint is in fact a CRIME.
Great quote.
“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First?”
That professor is such a wuss. Can’t let a student present an opposing point of view that makes sense.
Harvey: Being that this is text, and not an actual conversation, I can’t tell if you’re displaying extreme sarcasm or if you actually agree with me. I’m assuming the former, but my experiences speak for themselves. I would rather sit in class knowing that three or four of my classmates were armed and capable of defending themselves than sit in class knowing that not a single person in the room has the means to fend off an armed assailant.
Stephen: The next time you mention having a beer at the corner bar, I hope someone decides to start investigating you for your “inappropriate activities.” I mean, after all, if everyone who ever consumed alcohol was investigated for it, maybe drunk drivers wouldn’t kill so many people on our roads each year… Right?
Those of you who disagree with firearm ownership should think about this:
You’re asleep at night and you’re awaken by the sound of glass breaking. You hear two male voices and footsteps. Next to your bed is a cell-phone and a flashlight.
Can you honestly say that you wouldn’t wish to have a gun?
If not, again, you obviously don’t have the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and as such, I don’t feel much sympathy for you in the event you are victimized by a violent criminal.
If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First?
I guess the 1st Amendment only covers those in seats of power, seems to me that some legal action should be started against the communist professor and campus police. Welcome to the USSA citizens.. be ready to produce your papers at every check point. And for all those who aspire to wear the brown shirt of the new socialist regime, there will come a day when history will show you in a very bad light.
Frankly, I don’t see what the big stink is. The professor was within her rights to make her concerns known to the administration, and weapon registrations are accessible to police (otherwise, what’s the point?).
It’s a matter of due diligence. Think: if the Virginia Tech shooter had been checked this way, things might have been different (if he was as unstable as everybody who’d had contact with him claimed he was, that would have been apparent to police). Anyway, if the guy is law-abiding, he’s got nothing to worry about — he even said as much himself: “I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”
Good for him! Honestly.
The trouble is, I think he’s trying to make a political issue out of this. It’s a bit disingenuous. Stories like this get inflated into idiotic misrepresentations like “PROFESSOR CALLS COPS AFTER STUDENT GIVES PRESENTATION ON GUN RIGHTS”, which conjures images of SWAT grunts grinding some hapless college skinny’s face into the pavement.
Come on, people!
Sorry, that was for the brilliant Drew.
It’s great to be told just how little I know of how BRILLIANT your views are. I sit in awe of how much you know.
Political correctness is the name of the problem. The fashionabe view of the minute is apparently now enforceable with the local police despite the lack of any laws being broken. Yes, the professor is a PSH, the police are apparently idiots for wasting taxpayer time and money on a non-crime, but every time we bow to the pressure to conform to the PC agenda we become complicit in their idiocy. Stand up, like John Wahlberg and his classmates, voice your opinions calmly, quiety and repeatedly in the face of this group-think censorship. Do what you can to help those around you see that a differing opinion is not a crime. Only when people have the integrity to resist the herd instinct and express their unpopular views will we stop this kind of stupidity.
I think Jim Horan’s idea of a detailed investigation and publication of the actual documentation is a GREAT idea. The article certainly provides probable cause for such deliberate and thorough action, giving Professor Anderson the opportunity to defend her presumptively invalid actions (law, constitution) in a public forum under the very doctrine of freedom of expression and ideas that she appears, on the face of the article, to have violated. We can then see if, and how, she uses the language (facts and meaning of words), the reasonableness of her perceptions, under the circumstances (as reviewed by ordinary, reasonable people), and any applied logic (claimed reasons, subject to reasonable scrutiny by reasoning, reasonable people) under the constitution, laws, and University regulations and policy.
Concurrently, the University can (and should) conduct a fitness inquiry concerning her conduct as a Professor in the course and scope of her employment.
This appears to be an issue of “content-based” discrimination under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, at a minimum. A seminal case was Chicago v. Mosely (408 U.S. 92 – 1972) where picketing/disturbance of the schools during class operations was prohibited, with an exception for the school employees’ unions. The concept is much broader than that. In other words, if you don’t like the ideas that you hear, the subject matter of the discussion/debate/dispute, that just “too bad.” The purpose of freedom of expression is to cause debate, dissent, disturbance of complacency, to challenge proposed policies, and/or to foster change from the status quo.
In the late 80s, the concept became known as “political correctness,” and was used (mostly by the political left, but not exclusively) to shut off debate and discussion of policies, issues, ideas/beliefs that those in “power” didn’t want to change or to allow to be challenged. It was a new set of subject-matter taboos: “You can’t talk about that.”
They used the buzz-word, “threat” in order to attempt to skirt the First Amendment, because there is an exception in the First Amendment for “ballistic” speech, based on “threat,” concerning words and ideas that are intended to, or recklessly (reasonably perceived by reasonable people) can cause harm. What they ignore (there’s no way they forgot it) is the requirement that the “threat” generally required to be against their person or property AND “real and immediate” and to involve “unlawful action,” on the facts, as reasonably perceived by a reasonable person Ex: Brandenburg v. Ohio, (395 U.S. 444 – 1969); Hess v. Indiana (414 U.S. 105 – 1973). These cases, and the doctrine, grew from an amazing case, Terminello v. Chicago (337 U.S. 1 – 1949), which required that the police act to PROTECT AND TO PRESERVE the right of freedom of expression, not suppress it or terminate it, against an angry mob that was threatening violence against the speaker based on the ideas that he was expressing. Terminello was protesting (literally “on a soap box” on the steps of the federal courthouse, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelley v. Kramer which removed racially restrictive covenants in the sale of land from the ability of all courts in the United States to enforce (“state action” – 14th Amendment). They arrested and removed him “for his own safety” because it was easier than trying to control the mob. It is not disorderly conduct or incitement to riot greatly to disturb people with ideas which challenge their beliefs, ideas, policies, and/or the status quo.
“For your own good,” “for the children,” “because my beliefs are threatened or challenged” are all unconstitutional reasons for suppressing, or attempting to suppress, ideas for change, or any discussion, for that matter. The answer to speech with which you disagree is more speech: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) – Justice Brandeis.
Do you, or do you not, have “academic freedom” at the University? Does the rule of law, and the constitution apply there, or not? In the immortal words of Deputy Barney Fife (Andy Griffith show, played by Don Knotts, and where Ron Hoawrd got his start in acting and directing), “You’ve got to nip it in the bud!” Or you will have totalitarian thought control (It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the left ["For your own good."] or the right ["That's the way it should be."]) All totalitarian regimes claim that they will rule “benevolently.” Make no mistake about it; they intend to rule.
Good luck!
What a horrific example of a professor with no respect for individual rights if the person’s views differ from her own. She has no business teaching.
Ditto…if I am not mistaken the campus police are part of the CT State Police since CCSU is part of the Connecticut State University System. Their nickname is CC5-0.
I call BS. Something like ts could never happen in the United States of America. We have the second amendment to protect our right to own firearms. We have the First Amendment to protect free speech.
How did the campus police get a list of registered firearms? There is no national firearm registration. Has Conn. got own of their own? Perhaps the people of Conn. don’t think that a silly Constitutional Amendment applies to them? The Supreme Court must be populated with nimwhits, by university standards.
I just can’t believe that the Campus Mall Cops, The University Elite, and the Professor in question would open themselves up to litigation, like this. This kid should sue the pants off of them. In Federal court, where namby pamby Conn. laws are irrelevant.
I think this would be a good topic for the Universities Law class.
I can’t believe this isn’t even in the newspapers, “Teacher uses police to force own beliefs on student”, that’s a pretty scary title right there.
Is this what America has become?
As a CCSU student I am embarrassed and ashamed of my University right now. The students involved should have every dime of the money the spent for this class returned to them, they should also be given a full 4.0 grade for the class and Ms Anderson should be let go at the end of this term. I have had many wonderful professors at CCSU who were more than happy to allow me to argue whatever stance of the day I took. This sort of knee-jerk idiocy should not be acceptable anywhere.
This teacher was projecting her own gun angst on the students when she noted that “his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.” Colleges are generally liberalizing institutions. That includes professors who generally do not like guns and feel that their use needs to be governmentally regulated. A student in a classroom presentation poses no risk for taking a position, much like a debate on a timely subject. If the same student had proposed more “common sense” gun control, then I seriously doubt the teacher would have reported him, again, without foundation, to the campus police. This instructor is a prime example of the politicians and groups who continue to substitute their fears and judgment for reason or the law. I believe the 1st amendment applied in his presentation. Why then, did the 2nd amendment become inappropriate? I never cease to be amazed at the lack of understanding of Americans about the circumstances and reasons why the ability to keep and bear arms was so important in the formation of our republic. It was a natural, pre-existing, basic right to keep and bear arms, not only for defense of self, but also against the possibility of tyranny of the government over the governed. In terms of his logic of defense of life, law that would permit firearm carry and timeliness of the subject, the student earned an A. The teacher, however, would get an F for her judgmental knee-jerk response to information with which she did not personally agree, and an over-reaction. She owes the student an apology, although I seriously doubt he will get one.
So, the word gun was mentioned in class and the professor calls to cops? This is a great precedent to set. The fact is, that Mr. Wahlberg is right, had the students or teachers and VTech been allowed to exercise their Constitutional right to carry a gun then the shooter may well have been stopped. This professor needs to be fired, or at the very least censured and have their tenure taken away!
Sara Adler’s statement would be more correct if she had stated “If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment? After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, and ANTI-AMERICAN ideas.”
Those commenters that don’t see a problem with the way Mr. Wahlberg was treated, Susie in particular, really have no concept of what America is supposed to be about. The professor is a monumental idiot, and that it even went as far as it did is appalling and sad.
Punishing people for their opinions is more in line with life in Cuba and China. I would happily ship these people off to those places, where they will better fit in, than have them in my country where some people still value freedom.
The headline should read, ‘Free Speech Frightens Left Leaning Faculty’ .
.What do you expect from a the scum of the earth a communist Professor.
She should be fired on the spot and toss on the street like the dog she is.
The campus police should be fired for sticking their nose in someone gun files.
Let see we have armed students no nutcase can kill 20 or 30 people.
We have unarmed sheep in class they can be slaughtered.
The police and campus police sure did a great job saving all the students in VA Tech right.
Anyone that wants to disarm Free people is a traitor to American
To R. Smith and Susie, you really need to wake up and realize we live in a world of violence. Nothing you say or do will ever change that, criminals will always be criminals, and no matter what law you pass, they will never obey them. Do you really think that if every law abiding gun owner was forced to turn in their guns, that the criminals would stand in line to turn them in too? Of course not, and all that would happen is there would be 80 million more unarmed potential victims in the US. You want to stop violence, punish the criminals and keep them locked up. You think the 1st amendment applies to only thoughts you agree with, maybe you should move to a country that doesn’t promote personal freedom, and the government controls every aspect of your life. I’m sure there are plenty of homes available in North Korea or China.
As for the teacher, I hope they kick her to the curb, as personal political opinions have no place in the classroom.
Those of you who are speaking out against Mr. Wahlberg obviously lack logic, the ability to think rationally, the ability to interpret empirical evidence and the most basic instinct we are blessed with as humans: self-preservation.
Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675 and re-think your stance.
Firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens who have undergone an extensive FBI background check and who have paid a substantial financial sum to acquire firearms, ammunition and training are not at all dangerous to the general population. If anything, having a responsible, armed citizen in your classroom, bank, grocery store, movie theater parking lot or restaurant could very well save your life some day.
As a recent college graduate, I experienced three separate lockdowns on my college campus during my senior year alone. On top of that, a string of robberies/assaults (muggings) occurred in a parking lot near the building most of my courses were in. Several sexual assaults on females occurred from non-students coming on campus to prey on women and vehicles in the parking lot were routinely looted and vandalized. “Campus Security” oftentimes could do nothing. They were understaffed, under-trained, under-equipped and frankly, underpaid to handle the volume and intensity of the crimes that were being perpetrated.
Where did that put me? I was totally defenseless. Insane policies forbidding FBI-background-checked firearm owners such as myself are in place to “protect the students.” But protect them from what? They certainly weren’t protected from robbery, sexual assault, vandalism or burglary… And I can assure you, they were not being protected from a mass-shooting such as what happened at Virginia Tech.
People such as myself who have the means, training and mentality to protect ourselves and our loved ones do not often become victims of these crimes.
Liberal pacifist apologists who bend to the demands of criminals both continue to fuel the cycle of predation and foster an environment of fear, insecurity and helplessness on our college campuses.
It’s time for people to start standing up and protecting themselves. This is about more than just the Second Amendment; this is about our most basic human rights. Something many of you obviously know NOTHING about.
Questions:
Is there a special Nanny-911 number at CCSU to deal with lack of comfort issues?
Did this quivering professor state in the syllabus that only happy-feel good communications would be allowed?
Does John Walberg have a good Civil Rights attorney? *
*methinks he’s in for some reverse tuition payments
To Susie: Your ignorance and reaction is stunning. For millions of us, including us women, guns are the equalizer and about self-defense, for ourselves and our loved ones. I’m more terrified that there are people like you who would resort to Nazi-like tactics and imprison a person soley on his opinions. Get a backbone, lady, and get some education about armed self-defense. SCOTUS has ruled over and over again that law enforcement has no duty to protect your butt; that is your responsibility and yours alone.
This type of behavior from the ivory towers is only going to get worse.
How did an non government entity get a list of this mans guns?
Something doesn’t pass the smell test. There very well may be a gun registration requirement in Conn. but just any podunk wannabe campus cops should not have access to it.