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.
Just wanted to say, that YES, the CCSU police have access to gun registration databases. This information is held public safety commissioner as well as within an electronic database.
The CCSU police are also STATE TROOPERS, with full rights to that information.
I have a CCW permit to carry in 42 states and I’ve never met a police officer who wasn’t appreciative of my efforts. Remember these words of wisdom….
1) When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
2) I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy.
3) When asked why I shot the attacker ten times, I responded “because I ran out of bullets”
4) A gun without bullets is a club.
Be well and be safe …………………. Gary
I wonder if a muslim was speaking and spoke of things that made some people uncomfortable, would she have reported them to the police?
Our country is in deep trouble when fascist minded authorities create a chilling effect on straightforward political speech. Keep speaking out, students at CCSU. Make it clear that it is Paula Anderson and her stooge police force that are the true threat to you.
This is horrible, and legal actions should be taken. I am making a similar presentation in my Comm 101 class tomorrow and I will now request no one call the cops.
Mr. Jack Burton
You speak of the constitution having internal protections, yet you then say I have no right to peacably assemble because I own firearms. You go on further to say the army should force me to feed and house federal troops. Have you never heard of the third amendmant? or does the constitution only apply to you and your ilk? I say truly it is not I but rather you who is a domestic enemy of the United States of America.
Does anyone else see the irony, So much for the basics of Communication 140 class
Also I think a review of CCSU Police procedures is in order. Why isn’t a little more light
being directed toward the way Mr Walberg was interrogated?
I think Mr. Wahlberg needs to sue Professor Anderson for intentional infliction of emotional distress, official oppression, and violation of his civil right to free expression under the First Amendment. I think he also needs to file a criminal complaint for official oppression and violation of his civil rights by Professor Anderson.
What happened to free speech! Germany collected all the guns from citizens, shortly before they executed millions of Jews! What criminals fear most is confronting an armed homeowner, so the fact that many people own guns may make you safer in your own home. I know from first hand experience that the police almost never prevent crimes but unfortunately usually show up to deal with the aftermath. Maybe some would prefer being assaulted or raped, but I can assure you that I would rather have the means to defend myself. I have a feeling that gun confiscation in this country would not be possible. I certainly would not want to be a cop going around door to door and trying to collect them. The fact is that we have a strong heritage of firearms ownership written into our constitution. This is for both hunting and the defense of liberty.
This is a bit old but informative.
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————-
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns………….We Are ‘Citizens’.
Without Them……..We Are ‘Subjects’..
During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
The student should of filed suit against the university, professor, and the cop shop. The student also should not have responded to the cop request to visit their shop, big no no, they just wanted to harass this poor kid.
This “professor” should be required to attend sensitivity training on the issue of First Amendment rights.
Afterwards… she should be fired.
This is one of the most retarded things I’ve ever heard. This woman should be fired.
Nothing like Gestapo tactics to silence dissenting opinion. So much for the left’s beloved Berkley Free Speech Movement.
This incident is most disturbing because in Connecticut, like most states, it is not a crime to carry guns on college campuses. See map at http://www.opencarry.org/college.html.
The police have no business investigating legal conduct or suggestions of legal conduct.
I should have added the following to my statement: Dr. Anderson’s attitude makes me feel uncomfortable.
I think I will file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, the State Board of Governors for the University System and the Accreditation Office of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
I no longer feel I can be treated fairly in this school.
MODERATOR, I got the name of the movie a wrong few minutes ago, please replace with this post. Thank you.
I tried to let you all know that this is not an isolated incident by directing you to the documentary movie Indoctrinate-U (I have no connection). I posted the links but my comment was deleted. It’s been showing on the Documentary Channel. The trailer and unused clips just scratch what is going on in the universities, the movie shows much more. The web address is what you think it would be.
This “Professor” is clearly misguided I would like to point a few things out to her, if, she reads these comments, which I hope, seeing as her actions have done some damage.
Answering these questions may help you.
Paula Anderson, what made you think you need to file a complaint??
What will you do if a deranged student or person comes into your class with a gun or any other weapon??
call the Campus Police or 911??
How?? you may not be able to, in the real world you cannot call “time out” to psychopaths and ask if you can make a call
how long will it take for help to arrive??
5, 10, 15 minutes?? 10 at least on average
how much carnage could such a nut peform in 10 minutes??
you are probably in the mix of people who feel is all is well in your little “candy land” and all you ever have to do is call a cop and all will be magically well
that is not reality, look at events around the world, psychos come, they kill, and seldom do they get caught on the scene and are never stopped from commiting these heinous offenses
no my dear Ms. Anderson, you could learn a thing or two from your students
being alone with a psycho who has gun that can fire every second or more means you have to act or die
look at the little girl in Middletown who was stabbed to death on the sidewalk on Main st by a psycho from CVH, if someone there had a gun she may have lived
Virginia tech too,, can you imagine, you’re hunkered down, behind a chair, praying for help, but it is 10 minutes away and he is above you
better to have a gun and not need it than to wish you had it
I am a law abiding citizen with a Ct State permit to carry and I have never had to pull my gun and hope I never do, but I will not be a victim, and if I can save someone’s life, maybe even you or yours, I will.
I will then have to take the consequences, because you see Ms Anderson, once I fire my weapon and save you, you go home, I GET INVESTIGATED AND I GET SUED.
At the least if cleared by the police the family of the psychopath will most assuredly sue me, they will argue that if I had not fired and allowed them to kill more people till the cops came, they would have been able to get the help he needed.
I have several friends who are cops or troopers and they will tell you they can’t be there, it pains them but they do not have the ability to be everywhere.
All they can do is draw a chalk line around your body and start an investigation.
I think you should apologize to your student for over reacting and release a statement to the same, if you ego will let you.
I am a grad student. I am a combat veteran with more than 10 years
military service protecting this country. I am also a former police officer.
Whether I am on campus or not I carry a concealed weapon. The college
has no duty to protect me personally nor do the campus police, local police,
state police, FBI, DEA, ATFE..etc. No one knows that I carry a concealed firearm.
I fully understand the implications if I have to use my firearm to protect
myself or other vicitms. However I choose to make the choice as to
whether or not I should carry for my protection or to play the role of potential
victim in this Designated-Victim-Zone. People have experienced violent acts on
and near this campus. The area communities have crimes, very violent gangs,
illegal drug dealing, knifings, muggings, rapes, assaults and, yes, shootings.
England and Austrailia, with their vaunted gun-free societies, have higher rates of
personal crime from the time they imposed gun confiscation especially in the category of
home invasions. It is illegal to defend oneself in England, A victim in England must
retreat. RETREAT? HELL, NO, not me! I would rather
be judged by twelve in a court rather than be carried by six to my grave!
To the protesting professor: If you should become a victim of a crime who would
you want to come to your aid, a person like me or some simpering liberal
who would stand there and fret?
BTW I am female and I did not use my real name because the administration would
seek me out for possible disciplnary action. Now that would be a real Constitutional
issue for the courts! Oh, yes, I would fight for my rights and I don’t think I would be alone
in that battle! My Second Amendment Sisters would stand by me!
I tried to let you all know that this is not an isolated incident by directing you to the documentary movie Document-U (I have no connection). I posted the links but my comment was deleted. It’s been showing on the Documentary Channel. The trailer and unused clips just scratch what is going on in the universities, the movie shows much more. The web address is what you think it would be.
For those of you who aren’t sufficiently educated on the facts, here they are:
1. It isn’t a crime to make a statement about guns, or to make people feel uncomfortable. The police should never have been involved as a result and exercised extreme poor judgment pursuing this matter.
2. The correct response to the detective would be to have never responded. If he had subsequently shown up at the student’s door, the student should have simply said “lawyer” and that would’ve been it.
3. The student should contact a civil lawyer to explore a lawsuit against the professor and the police, as well as file a formal complaint against the detective.
4. Criminals will acquire weapons no matter how many bans or regulations you put on society. That’s why they’re called criminals – they purposely circumvent the law. The only things citizens can do are to defend themselves and vote in people who will catch the real perpetrators of crime.
5. If one thinks they feel uncomfortable with an idea of guns, they should try to imagine how they’d feel when they’re assaulted or robbed or raped without recourse with the police “just a phone call away”. They should walk through an entire scenario step-by-step to see how they’d feel about not being able to defend themselves.
6. Universities are fiefdoms. They will destroy a student’s academic career in a heartbeat if they feel it doesn’t fit the paradigm of their fiefdom. Complaints directly at the professor without the threat of significant legal representation or civil liability can backfire or cause retribution among other faculty members.
I would love to submit a response, but I am afraid to, since it might not be “politically correct”…
Jim Rau:
I think you missed the point. In the first paragraph, I was quoting someone else and responding in favor of Mr. Wahlberg. I am a gun owner, and I come from a family of gun owners, most of whom have served in the military and/or law enforcement. I hold multiple permits, including a CT pistol permit, and I am a member of a number of gun rights advocacy groups. I am fully in support of Mr. Wahlberg and the idea of allowing guns on campus.
Based on the comments following my first post, I am led to believe that I responded to sarcasm, but I found no evidence to support that her comment was anything other than her true feelings.
This is so ridiculous. The second amendment helps keep the first amendment in place. If I were him I would not have answered any questions from the cops that night without a lawyer present. Where I keep my guns is nobody’s business. If they put as much time in searching for criminals as they do harassing law-abiding citizens, there would be less crime. How do colleges get away with abridging peoples’ rights this way? Why is it tolerated?
Posted by RSmith:
~”This man deserves to be put into prison for his instigation of a classroom directly after school shootings occured. I applaud the teacher for contacting the police as this man clearly fits the mold of Al Queda sleeper school shooting operative.”
In my many years, I have not been taught the same things as you, MrRSmith, because I cannot see how a legal gun owner, doing a presentation regarding safe concealed carry for law abiding citizens as a form of defense, “clearly fits the mold of (an) Al Queda sleeper school shooting operative.” I do have to applaud your terror inspiring description- you must be a creative writing student. However, at no stretch of the imagination does Mr. Wahlberg fit that description. If you were to exercise a little intellectual honesty, you would admit your errors there. I was also not aware that presenting a topic which was not a liberally popular ideal, was ‘instigation of a classroom.’ I do have to ask though…. “instigating” them to what, exactly?
I was also not aware that college campuses were considered “children.” Well, as you are a ‘child,’ you may not understand this concept… there is this little thing here in America that we like to call the Constitution. It happens to the ONLY reason you live in a free country and enjoy the freedoms you do. The reason you DO enjoy those freedoms is because men bigger and braver than you, were willing to take up arms and EARN that freedom. Just because another American citizen wants to exercise his freedom in an entirely legal way different from what you think he should, does not give you the right to imprison him. That’s just not how this country works. However, if that’s what you truly believe should happen, there are several countries in this world which would better suit your needs.
~”They did a fine job at Virginia Tech-look how many victims there could have been had it not been for the police.”
I’d like to mention the little fact that the victims and murderer at Virginia Tech were all dead long before the police even made it to him. The police at Virginia Tech were merely there to clean up the mess, and do an investigation AFTER the fact. If that’s your idea of ‘protection,’ then it’s very different from a rational person’s ideal.
~”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. 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.”
Ah, Utopia. Perhaps someday we’ll all live in a world with no crime, no hatred, no disagreements…… However, until that time many of us would rather live in a world of freedom, where we are able to make our own choices- free to speak about ideals which may not be ‘politically correct,’ and free to protect ourselves from danger, free of enslavement.
Posted by Susie:
“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.”
Really? Promoting a citizen’s right to the Second Amendment (which was also very recently upheld by the USSC in Heller v DC) is a prisonable offense? Are all gun owners murderers? You’re equating legal gun ownership with murder. Do you have any idea how ignorant you truly are?
I’m a woman- a wife, mother, and professional. I own several firearms, and I’ve never killed a soul. Nor do I plan to- unless of course some criminal threatens my life or the lives of my children. I enjoy shooting as a sport (as do many Olympians, btw), and I carry concealed everyday as a means of defense. You may feel comfortable being in a position where your only means of ‘defense’ is calling 911 and praying that the police get there in time to help you, rather than just cleaning up your remains. As for me and mine, we will have a fighting chance against those criminals who will ALWAYS be present in this world.
Do yourself a favor, Susie. I realize you’re young, so there may be a chance for you to turn your ignorant stance around. Re-read what you posted again, and see if you can reconcile that with a belief in the freedom of speech. Keep in mind that without the Second Amendment, there is NO guarantee of the First. Consider that what you just posted said that you believe in freedom of speech, but only if it fits YOUR agenda or preconceived notions about what firearms are. Research the fact that the vast majority of murders are committed WITHOUT any firearm involvement. And then ponder this: murders are committed by MURDERERS, not inanimate objects. Behind every murder is a criminal…. a criminal who has infinite tools at his disposal.
Think rationally. Break free of your indoctrination.
From Lester: “Hey, Andy. I think you missed out on the sarcasm in Jane’s comment. Her last line gave it away. About things going so well in England since guns were taken out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Ummmm, at least I hope she was kidding. Maybe not, since she claims to be a student on this campus full of left-wing propoganda.”
Lester, if Jane (or anyone else) was being sarcastic , I’m guilty as charged – I totally missed the mark if that’s the case, and I have no problem admitting it :))
On a slightly different note, I also have to admit that I do enjoy pointing out Massad Ayoob’s truism:
“Sadly, being helpless themselves, sheep tend to instinctively fear anything with canine teeth. Many of them cannot distinguish between the wolf and the sheepdog, and thus fear them both equally.”
I believe that most of us don’t seek praise or thanks for being a sheepdog; we don’t even want or need acknowledgment. What I *do* want is to be left alone to enjoy my legal hobby in peace and not be attacked/accused/judged by the ignorant for pursuing it.
It sounds like the next presentation on a “relevant issue in the media” should be “Free Speach in our University System”. Clearly Ms Anderson has problems. If in fact she has the support of her Department Chair and Dean, then CCSU also has problems.
I commend Mr Walberg and his cohorts for exercising their freedom of speech. It is those who do these that invigorates the rest of us. It is those like him who dare to make a statement about what they feel and stand up for. Soon we will tire of what is going on, and inspired action will follow.
I don’t own a gun and probably never will, but I’m still flabbergasted that the police were called because the presentation made students “uncomfortable.” I kind of thought the whole point of higher education is to be exposed to new ideas, some of which will probably make you uncomfortable.
The kid makes a controversial statement, the class discusses, ideas are exchanged, views are challenged. Isn’t that how education is supposed to work?
I have read of several cases like this, where an anti-gun person antagonizes a pro-gun person supposedly out fear. If the anti-gunner truly fears firearms, he or she would flee or at least avoid confrontation. The professor’s action proves she doesn’t fear firearms, but was motivated to cynically attack one whom she regarded as a political enemy.
Mike, I do indeed understand what happened here and I do understand the role of the police. The role of the police is to be the second responders to a criminal act and to investigate an alleged crime.
The police do not have to investigate every call they receive if on the surface there does not seem to be a crime involved. For instance, just recently in my local area, the police received a call that there was a man with a gun at a local store. Instead of rushing police to the scene for no reason they asked the caller a couple of questions: Is he waving the gun around? Has he threatened anyone? The caller’ said that “no, he just has it in a holster and he is picking out some meat at the beef counter”. Of course the police response then was, then he isn’t breaking any laws, good day ma’am. They didn’t send a score of police cars or call in SWAT for an inappropriate response and they did not call the man in to be grilled and questioned as to how many guns he had or where he kept them.
In the case of the college professor, the police instead responded by harassing and attempting to intimidate the student when no obvious crime was committed. Now, if the police were instead acting on misinformation, then I apologize. If the professor had said reported something nonfactual and that caused the police to respond the way they did, then of course they should have investigated.
Clearly this student has been wronged. Either by the professor, the police or both. If the police responded the way that they did simply because because a professor did not like what a student had to say, then I stand by my statement that they are just being fascist strong-arms of the university. If the police acted appropriately, it is only because they were acting on bad information that the student was committing a crime. If that is the case, then the university professor should be charged with filing a false report.
this doesn’t surprise me – universities in america are not as free as people think when it comes to dissenting ideas
not at all
How did the Campus Police get a list of the students firearms? Who called the Connecticut State Police for the list, and why did they call the Connecticut State Police for the list of firearms?
Did Prof. Anderson attempt to get an “at risk warrant” issued for a student due to the students use of his first amendment rights during a classroom discussion without any threats on his part?
What was the advice of “[her] Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials” Do the department Chair, the Dean, and “the relevant University officials” offer any explanation as to why CCSU does not belong to the “free Speach zone” called the United States or why they are attempting to enforce non-existant law through intimidation tactics?
Did professor Anderson file a false police report?
All questions that need to be answered.
There is something wrong with Professor Anderson and the University administration that needs to be corrected.
Sparky McDougall
Just because the police want to talk to you does not mean that you have to talk to them.
If they want you let them jump through the hoops, getting an arrest warrant supported by Oath or affirmation as its supposed to be done not through intimidation.
SCOTUS Affirmed the RTKBA in Heller. That should end it right there.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
What about Shall not be infringed do they not understand.
I’m completely amazed. The professor clearly went into panic mode as soon as she heard the word gun. It seems that people have completely forgotton that guns are inanimate objects. There is so much in this world that is blamed on the inanimate object, rather than the person behind it. That’s like saying that everyone that has ever driven a car is potentially evil, because there are people out there that have killed others with a car. Guess what, its the person, not the object. I am a 28 year old female, I obtained my Concealed Carry permit after college, but I wished I’d had it then. Many nights I had to walk home in the dark alone from class. Calling campus security to escort you was a joke. At the first college I went to, a small private liberal arts school, we had 3 security officers, one that was about 70 years old, one that was about 70 lbs overweight and one that was just stupid. I could’ve outrun all three. After a rash of peeping toms and sex offenders showing up on campus, I bought a stun gun. At the university I graduated from, the enrollment was over 30,000. Calling security meant a solid 5-10 minute wait if not longer, especially if you just wanted an escort across campus. I also lived close enough to campus that I could not legally keep a gun in my home, which still boggles my mind. I was followed home more than once, had many strange people knock on my door and a girl was raped a block away from me on her morning (daylight) jog. I now have my CCW and can carry whenever I feel the need to. I don’t carry everywhere or all the time, but I do feel relieved knowing that I can. I also know that people that take the time to get their CCW are some of the most law-abiding people you can find (criminals would not sit through the two (fairly boring) 4 hour long videos that you have to watch), and then spend the afternoon learning about gun laws and gun safety. I feel safer knowing that everytime I go out, there is potentially a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Criminals don’t care about CCW’s. Law-abiding citizens do.
Fatwhiteman I don’t think you really understand what went on or do not want to.
“This is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of. Isn’t there a minimum intelligence requirement to be a professor? With her unwarranted hysteria, combined with her lack of understanding of history, current events or the U.S. Constitution, I would say her I.Q. is somewhere between a rock and a wet fart.”
The professor was not stupid or in a state of hysteria. She just disagrees with the united states having a liberal firearm policy and wants a restrictive one. The professor so strongly belivies in The State. That when someone disagreed so well with her own point of view. She decided to use the power of the university to harass one of her students.
“And then there are the police. What kind of fascist nuts do you let wear a badge in Connecticut?”
You must be a troll or very dim witted. What exactly do you believe a police officers job is? A police officer is not a judge or district attorney.
Anderson should be arrested and thrown in jail for life for violating the First Amendment.
this article shows the true face of liberal/socialist professor and the cesspools that higher education has become today, whe have become a nation of bleating spinless sheep who wait on kind comrade obama’s hand outs.
true education does not matter, political correctness is all that counts.
According to the SCOTUS ruling on this matter, the police do not have a duty to protect you. Therefore, we have the right to protect ourselves, by any means necessary, against a threat.
The police are there to investigate crimes after they happen. Guns are a necessary part of our society for protection. The founding fathers knew this. They also knew that to protect us from government, guns were necessary. As it is said, the Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
It is also clear that this was an incredibly important amendment; being at the top of the list and the FACT that the federalists and anti-federalists argued for days on who would get credit for creating this amendment.
If they accept any federal funding, it should be mandatory to allow CCW’s on campus.
Remember, “gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.”
Thanks
So this is what universities, university lecturers, and university admininstrations have become. How
shameful.
This is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of. Isn’t there a minimum intelligence requirement to be a professor? With her unwarranted hysteria, combined with her lack of understanding of history, current events or the U.S. Constitution, I would say her I.Q. is somewhere between a rock and a wet fart.
And then there are the police. What kind of fascist nuts do you let wear a badge in Connecticut? Their response should have been something along the lines of telling the teacher that saying the word “gun” is not a real crime and that she should just go take a Midol or something. Instead they look up the student’s registered firearms and proceed to grill him like he were a real criminal.
I think the real issue to this whole story that is not being discussed is registration. Ideally, the police should not have any registrations to riffle through. If this had been me, not only would the local Sheriff probably had just told the idiot professor to shut the hell up and stop being so stupid, he would also not have any firearms registration to look up.
Honestly, I can’t tell you how many guns I own because every time I think I have them counted, I find another. But one thing I can tell you for certain is that the state doesn’t know how many I have either because at least we do not have some silly registration scheme.
While I absolutely feel for the students victimized in not only the Virginia Tech shooting, and others, I’m frankly disgusted that a supposed “educator” and moulder of developing minds would commit such a huge blunder.
There was, I’d remind you no firearn there, just words and a dissenting opinion that followed the topic of the presentation, as given.
Words are protected (or used to be) under the constitution of the country. As were dissenting opinions.
Had I given this presentatikon, under the same instructions I would be fi\ling a civil rights violation complaint against the instructor, and the institution.
I assume that at least the right to file a complaint legally is still valid? Or is the massive excess of non- reasoning PC extended to remove that legal option also.
Although not currently in favour I can think of several massacres that would have been minimized, or prevented by a law abiding firearms owner. Perhaps the students that were “traumatized” just by the spoken word, would have been far less so if the situation they found themselves in were resolved before they were injured or killed because of the ability to defend themselves.
Again a dissenting opinion, but one worth thinking about if innocent lives could have been protected by stopping the mass murderers commiting the crimes.
The Professor was entirely correct in her decision.
Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, and shooting ranges means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.
Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members and seizing their guns will go a long way towards reducing crime.
If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norweigans to help rummage through people’s property.
People who don’t like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.
Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and no person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.
No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.
If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.
Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!
Long live our Constitution!
Some commenters have suggested that Mr. Wahlberg is a dangerous criminal who should be imprisoned because of his beliefs. It is terrifying to me that there are people who could make such a statement and still believe that they support the First Amendment. Someone who could suggest such a thing is the kind of person who would be capable of putting their fellow citizens in concentration camps and then sleep well, thinking that they had done a service to society.
I take some comfort in the observation that most commenters have not taken such a reactionary stance. However, it still worries me greatly that anyone could fail to see the lack of logic in the statement that “I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.” The individuals who have made this and similar comments really need to take a critical look at their own world view. Hopefully, they will emerge more open-minded and reasonable.
Heaven forbid the student might have instead selected a topic on sexual battery or alcohol abuse on a college campus! Goodness, he would have actually brought the necessary instruments to class that could be used in a sexual assault.
Some friendly advice…(stolen shamelessly from somewhere on the web)
I was recently contacted by the Police.
They want me to come in to the precinct to talk to them. What should I do?
So you got home from work today and there’s a Detective’s business card under your door. You call the number on the card. He tells you he’d like you to come in and talk to him. What should you do?
Call your lawyer, that’s what.
When the police want to chat, you most likely won’t be coming home from the precinct that day. You are going to be arrested.
No, you can’t talk them out of it. The police have already made their decision.
No, they won’t listen to your side of the story and change their minds. The other side already convinced them to arrest you.
No, they don’t care that you would never do something like that. That you have a good job. That you’re college educated. That you support your elderly parents, your five kids and your wife.
The police don’t care that you’re a really nice guy.
They don’t even care that you weren’t even there.
So what do you do when the police want to talk to you? Call your lawyer first.
But don’t take my word for it. Call that Detective with the business card and ask him what’s going on. He’ll tell you something like this: “We need to straighten this out.” “I need to hear your side of the story.” “I need to see you in person.”
Here’s what he won’t say: “You’re going to be arrested for a major felony.” “Pack your toothbrush.” “You won’t be going home for a while.”
Why? Because then you wouldn’t go see him, would you? Then he would have to come looking for you, which is a lot harder.
Call your lawyer.
No one is suggesting you should run from the police. That only causes more problems. But you cannot walk into that police precinct by yourself. If you go in with a friend or family member, the police will make them wait in the lobby for you. A few hours later, the officer at the front desk will tell your friend or family member that they can see you in court the next morning. Or at visiting hour at the jail after that.
So who should you call when the police are looking for you? Your lawyer.
And who should go with you to see the police? Your lawyer.
Why? Because your lawyer can call the Detective and find out what’s going on. The police will usually talk to us. We can find out if they are planning to arrest you or if you really are just a witness. We can find out if they really want to “hear your side of the story” or if that was just a lame ruse to get you to turn yourself in.
Your lawyer can sit with you and the police when you’re being interviewed. Your lawyer can tell you what questions to answer and what questions not to answer (in other words, when to shut up).
Realize this: If you’re not the victim of a crime, the police are not here to help you. And the law says that they can lie to you. As much as they want. If it gets you to confess. So, if you’re not the victim of a crime, if the police ask you to come in to chat, you can’t trust a thing they say.
The police are very good at using what you say against you. By instinct, most people want to please the police when they talk to them, which often makes them say things they think the police want to hear. Sometimes, those things aren’t exactly true. But they become part of your statement, and your statement can–and will–be used against you. That can’t happen if you have a lawyer with you. The police can’t get a confession from you if they can’t get you to say what they want to hear.
NO, bringing a lawyer with you to see the police does not make you look more guilty. And who cares if it does? They were planning to arrest you anyway. Bringing a lawyer with you may be the only way you are going to go home tonight.
If you were wrong, if you really were just a witness, then consider it an insurance policy.
And if you do get arrested, the police and prosecutors have a lot less to work with down the line when it comes to proving you guilty in court.
So don’t call that Detective first. Call your lawyer.
I am a retired police officer and I got a real laugh at David Robersons response. He obviously is not living in the world with the rest of us. I as a police officer I am VERY relieved when citizens except the responsibility to be armed and defend themselves and others, even the clueless ones like Mr. Roberson who are so out of touch with reality.
An armed society is a safe society!!
I live just up the road from CCSU, and I am not only shocked that this happened but disgusted with the attitudes of people who support the actions of this professor. As usual, when gun-grabbers have nothing to contribute to the discussion they instead begin with the name-calling.
And I’m hoping that ‘Jane’ is just being sarcastic. If you truly mean what you say, I feel sorry for you.
Folks like ‘AndyC’, ‘Drew’, and ‘DavidGross’ are right-on-the-money. The police have no duty to protect you, and I have yet to see someone who’s gone through a carry-permit process turn into a raging, homicidal killer just because they walked on to a college campus.
Oh, and to any of you vermin that advocate gun bans and/or confiscation I have a warning: try to take my weapons and I will deal with you quickly and harshly.
mg
Hey, Andy. I think you missed out on the sarcasm in Jane’s comment. Her last line gave it away. About things going so well in England since guns were taken out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Ummmm, at least I hope she was kidding. Maybe not, since she claims to be a student on this campus full of left-wing propoganda.