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.
What always gets left out of this discussion is the main reason to allow citizens guns: So the government does not completely control them and they have a fighting chance if they want to revolt.
The way things are going and the control the left is trying to sieze under Obama’s socialist plan, that is more relevant than at any time in the last 100 years.
“The ideas being espoused by Mr. Wahlberg are not the types of ideas we should tolerate in our society, particularly on a college campus.”
Ah, I see. Intolerance is OK with you, as long as the subject matter isn’t on the liberal agenda. Furthermore, we should move from not tolerating behaviors to not tolerating ideas.
How progressive.
The scary thing is I don’t think Roger is kidding…I actually feel a little bit bad for him that he is that closed minded.
When I went to college in CT in the 1990’s, my father was suprised that I wasn’t taking any firearms that I ownded with me. Dad was both a police officer and public school teacher. I told him that it was probably frowned upon. Times change. When he was in school in the 60’s, lots of students kept guns in their dorm rooms for recreational shooting and hunting.
I can say that during my years at Uconn undergrad and law school, professors leanded to the left for sure, but I never felt ostrocized for my beliefs. I wrote papers and letter to the editor, and occassionally recieved the comment that while my professor disagreed with nearly everything I wrote, it was still deserving of an “A”. Its unfortunate to think that now, my “A” papers would probably land me in an small windowless room being interrogated by the campus gestapo.
Yet another shining example that certain (progressive) ideas are permitted by the gentrified elite with their supposed ideas of fairness, openness, and and tolerance to be shared with the masses….and others such as firearms rights must be quashed like a discarded and tossed overripe tomato.
Good job Professor in promoting the equal exchange of ideas.
*sarcasm mode off*
ROGERR: I have to believe that your comments are tongue-in-cheek, as no educated man could seriously condemn the open exchange of ideas, even those you detest, on a college campus. And, as I understand it, Mr. Wahlberg had jumped through all the required legal hoops for owning a firearm in Connecticut. He was doing nothing illegal, but he espoused an “idea” that frightens you and those like you.
Your fear is a product of your ignorance. Do you routinely fear and attack that which you do not understand? Wasn’t this the root cause of the Salem Witch Trials? Isn’t this ignorant generalization the basis for racism and bigotry? You consider yourself an evolved and educated man, yet you vigorously fear the idea of firearms.
Do you believe that firearms have no place in civilian society, or do you believe that a 20-something college student can’t be trusted with a gun? If it’s the former, then there is no hope for you and I’m wasting my breath. If it’s the latter, the I direct you to our fine soldiers fighting and dying to ensure your continued freedom to utter such nonsense. We send our kids to war at the tender age of 18, hand them a gun and teach them to use it. These are the same kids that many liberals denigrate as being below average and unable to obtain a job in the private sector.
Wait? Below average? That must mean your 20-something college student is average or above average, yet we’re going to categorically consider them too irresponsible to own and carry a firearm — even though they’ve met all of your state’s very restrictive qualifications? Even though they’ve done nothing wrong? Simply because they advocate gun ownership and legalized concealed carry on the college campus?
Oh… there it is again. Bad ideas. Bad thought. Diversity and tolerance, as long as YOU agree with it.
I’m curious as to your reaction to the student who advocated legalizing drugs. Did the student’s paper expressing his agreement with the philosophies of NAMBLA illicit a response from you? Would a paper on the necessity of beating a Muslim woman who allowed herself to be raped pique your ire? How about a paper extolling the benefits of euthanizing people who’ve outlived their usefulness. Would you demand the author’s expulsion?
I’m just wondering where you draw the line, my friend.
Next time he’ll do a talk about what happens when you do a REQUIRED presentation on a current issue that the prof disagrees with what will happen.
They will report you to the gestapo….
Now for my talk, how to make Jello……….
Reason 9,889 why I will not donate to my college—Hillsdale he it comes!
Radar in Va
DEG wrote:
As far as gunowners being disrespectful of authority it is interesting to note that someone wishing to purchase a handgun in CT – must attend a 10 hour class, go to a local police station, fill in an application, be fingerprinted, have a compete background check done, provide letters of reference, then go to the police to pick up the temporary permit , then drive to the public safety building or other state police facility to be photographed…
It is just like that in Ohio, except for some parts. In order to buy a handgun in Ohio you have to:
1. Find a gun to buy.
2. Pay your money.
3. Take it home and shoot it in your backyard.
Yup, just like CT only better.
“John
February 28, 2009 • 6:08 pm
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. ”
You hit the nail on the head John….
WE are the people who would lay down our lives to save a stranger’s child…..
They are they type that would let that child die through inaction and unpreparedness….
And yes….there are militant liberals that would gladly rifle butt conservative “spawn” into train cars and sleep well at night as a duty to their fellow man…
The kind profressor wouldnt actually riflebutt anyone into a train car personally…but clearly…she would gladly make to call to have them come for you…
The last political party in Germany that opposed the growing “workers party” later known as “National socialist movement” wasnt a left/liberal party….The last ooposition was the center right “peoples party”….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP
The Nazis’ strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and who feared Bolshevism more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Hitler’s anti-Semitism, since they blamed Jewish big business for their economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in World War I and attracted by the Nazis’ radical rhetoric, also became a strong Nazi constituency.
The last people to stand againt the nazi’s in german politics were the CENTER RIGHT DNVP and KVP…not the LEFT….the “workers party” aka “national socialists” aka nazi’s had allready co-opted the left years before.
The modern equivilant would be the “truther” “9/11 was an inside job” movement..these wide eyed freaks suffer from Bush/Neo-con derangment syndrome….
They hate bush and wish him dead as they view him as a war criminal….
Thus by extension….they view conservatives as supporters of war criminals…and worthy of “social justice”…
These are the McVeigh’s of our time…the black hoody anarchists smashing store windows…
The modern brownshirt….tool of the modern national socialists….
Tyranny cannot be commited until the unwilling are disarmed……
And only one political party in the US seeks to disarm the unwilling….the same group that views “Social Welfare as the business of the State.”
History repeats…..
Either Profosser Anderson misrepresented the content of the presentation or the campus police over-reacted. In either case, the university is culpable for their actions. I’m no lawyer but I would be quite interested how campus police came up with a list of Mr. Wahlberg’s firearms. I can see issues like invasion of privacy, accessing state records by misrepresentation, etc. This could be quite profitable for Mr. Wahlberg and an attorney who wished to repsresent him.
As the father of a CCSU student, I am extremely concerned about the actions of Mr. Wahlberg. Not only is Mr. Wahlberg advocating guns on campus, but he is the owner of several firearms himself. Clearly Mr. Wahlberg poses a potential threat to the CCSU community. I applaud the professor for filing her complaing, and I would urge the univesity to expel him from campus. Had this professor not filed a complaint, we never would have known we had a gun-owning student on campus. The ideas being espoused by Mr. Wahlberg are not the types of ideas we should tolerate in our society, particularly on a college campus. In light of the rash of school shottings in recent years, I support the adoption of legislation that anyone owning a firearm should not be permitted on a college campus.
I will be contacting the university today voicing my concern and urging them to expel Mr. Wahlberg, and notifying them that my daughter’s continued attendance at the university will be influenced by the type of disciplinary action they take.
I caught this story on Jonathan Turley’s blog. After reviewing the thread here, I am disillusioned both by the actions of the professor and the posted responses. I graduated from college in 1969 and from law school in 1972. By the time I finished school, I was hopeful that the free speech wars were almost over. Forty years later, I realize I was wrong. Whatever else may be said about the ’60s (usually by those who weren’t around then), there were a couple of things that liberals fought hard to establish. One was that governments routinely lie to the governed, and need to be viewed with suspicion. The second was that words are not to be censored and speech must not be suppressed. There is no topic about which I can be forbidden to speak. There is no religion entitled to immunity from my views. There are no cultural values which I am not free to criticize. There are no groups or races or genders whom I may not offend. There is no policy or rule or law which I may not mock or ridicule. Freedom of speech is not subject to a sovereign-it owes no loyalty to king or parliament. The only worthy opponent of an idea, no matter how distasteful or even hateful it may be, is another idea. I have watched in disgust as one campus after the next has introduced speech restrictions to “protect” groups perceived to be at risk or to eliminate views deemed to be intolerant or otherwise offensive to particular sensibilities. For Pete’s sake, wake up, folks. If universities do not serve as stalwart bastions of free speech, who will. Politicians? Your church? The local city council?
The topic of guns on campus is certainly worthy of debate, and it ought to be loud and robust. I personally think people who wish to arm college students are morons, but hey, that’s just me. Professor Anderson’s actions were puerile, but were probably borne of fear. Most of the comments on this thread haven’t even addressed the underlying issue. They have consisted mainly of an exchange of equally puerile insults and name-calling. I think both sides of this dispute could do a whole lot better.
This country is going downhill, fast. If you disagree with the left they crucify you. If you have a conservative radio show they make a “fairness doctrine” to shut you up. If you practice your second amendment rights they make bans and restrictions. Is there any place in the world that isn’t controlled by left wing loonies anymore?
“After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”
As long as they are not conservative ideas, then yes.
Should have asked the professor if she felt that having minorities in schools made her feel uncomfortable. She would have felt right at home in the Alabama school district in 1963. Guess she’d wanted those kids to give up THEIR civil rights so that the white kids could feel comfy.
Unbelievable.
Curtailing free speech at a university is inexcusable – no matter the subject matter. What’s more, fearmongering is something that we expect our government to do, but it should be absent at an institution for higher learning. Critical thinking is the most important skill set that our citizenry must learn, and this incident illustrates that critical thinking skills were sorely lacking in this particular environment.
Shame on Professor Anderson for reacting so poorly to a subject that I must believe is a sore-spot with her. I see no other logical reason for reporting a student to campus police for an incident like this.
Shame on the other posters who are calling for this man to be put behind bars for expressing a point of view that differs from yours. I’m sorry for you that you’re offended by being confronted with opinions that you don’t share. The world must truly be less colorful for you.
To really love liberty, you must accept that it not always has the sort of beauty you are used to. The real beauty lies in what you can do with it – not how it appears.
Obviously as long as idiots like Paula Anderson, teach at CCSU no free American can get a education at CCSU. What a waste of money CCSU is. Neither of my children will go to colleges that do not respect their civil rights.
Paula Anderson needs to be fired, banned from CCSU and teaching in a free country.
Mike Stollenwerk: 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.
You must have missed the part on that webpage where it says “NOTE: Even if Legal, Students May be Subject to Academic Sanctions”. According to the provisions under 10A-55c the CSU universities are granted the legal right to make policy. Their policy is no guns on campus. It’s a violaion of the student code of conduct.
As far as the police “having business investigating”, the police officers who work at the CSU Universities also enforce and document violations of the student code of conduct. It’s called an “additional duty” and is part of their job description. So they have business doing.
But, feel free to carry a gun on campus. If you’re a student, you’ll likely be expelled. If you’re a visitor, you’ll be removed from campus.
It’s a stupid policy, but it’s the one in effect. When there are finally enough people fed up with the policy, maybe we can get it changed. But being that CT is one of the “make any law that makes people feel good” states, I doubt you’ll see it.
peter kuck: They called DPS. As to why they called, it’s called due diligence and is well within the realm of normal everyday investigation procedure.
For Arthur: CCSU PD did what any other police department in CT would do. They called DPS and got the information. Not bad for “keystone cops”, hey?
ditto: Calling the officers at CCSU “podunk wannabe campus cops” shows you are just as ignorant as the professor is.
If nothing else, this article allows us to see that ignorance is as much of an issue for conservatives as it is for liberals.
What a dumb-ass professor!
Yup, i said it!
i went to SCSU in New Haven, CT. this is soo true of all the dumb-asses that infest this great country of ours. small minded individuals who cant see beyond the end of their ass that there is crime and wrong-dooers in this world, in your country, in your state, in your city, and even on the street you live on!
I met far too many professors that have the same ideals and vision of this professor.
today isnt the wild west anymore but we have moved on to a different type of society, one that is a bit more cultured. yet, i as many others do feel the need to “LEGALLY” have the right to carry a weapon to defend ourselves against the wrong-dooers of this world.
i guess the professor here would rather the rapist use a condom than her shoot the prick and prevent it from happening to other people….oh how the dumb will learn with time…
I am so glad this article was submitted.
I can’t wait for professor Paula Anderson’s actions to be scrutinized in court by the NAACP or the NRA.
Paula Anderson, you are a scumbag! Rot in hell!
I discovered that your story was reported on the nationally syndicated radio program GunTalk and posted on their podcast (www.guntalk.com) last Sunday 3/1/09. If you go to their podcast section and scan in 40 minutes of part 1 or 3, you can hear it. Also, the Up North Journal podcast and blog reported on it last weekend. The NRA is also investigating. I’m looking forward to seeing some people at Central fired for this infringement of the first and second amendments.You need not fear someone who wishes to discuss carry on campus. Fear a system that prohibits free speech and reacts by bringing in the authorities.
And so it begins…
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY R.SMITH
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. Gun rights groups are clearly outdated models based on past failures of social policy meant to protect the people. 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. What if just one child would be shot innocently, taking away his future, because someone wanted to carry on campus. 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. 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. 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.
========================================
And ‘evolve’ you will, my friend. Darwin may surely catch up with you, because it appears that you have no sense of human nature. While YOU may be so sophisticated and evolved that you see no need for a gun, there’s a large part of the population that sees you as food. You are their prey; a victim waiting to happen.
You’ve obviously spent too much time in academia and not nearly enough in the real world. History teaches us that societies that have evolved to the point where they believed the need for self-defense was no longer necessary, they quickly fell to those less civilized. Didn’t you learn that, or was that just ‘history’ and bears no relevance to real life?
“Let the police do their job” is one of the most insanely out of touch, liberal mantras to be uttered. The police DO their job, but their job is NOT to protect you ever second of every day and in every place you happen to wander. Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own personal safety, and statistically, the most effect way to resist an attack with with a firearm. Regardless of what you think you know, simply possessing a gun is not a crime, and protecting yourself is not violence. The anti-gunners have hijacked our language and replaced ‘force’ with ‘violence’ to make and defensive actions sound repugnant.
Do your pompous, idealistic brain a favor and look up three things for me:
Jessica Gonzales vs. Castle Rock Colorado
– You’ll find that you have no constitutional right to police protection.
Appalachian School of Law shooting
– If you research this properly, you’ll find that out of over 2,600 news reports of this shooting, only two newspapers mentioned that the shooter was stopped and held for police by two students who were licensed to carry and had guns in their cars.
National Academy of Sciences and CDC studies on restrictive gun laws vs. crime prevention
– What you’ll find is they’ve studied thousands of gun restrictions and have yet to find one that has had a measurable impact on crime. Surprisingly (to you, perhaps, but predictably to me), they found that the more restrictive gun laws often resulted in higher crime rates. Wonder why?
You may need to read this slowly and let the facts sink in. I’d hate for you to have an aneurysm.
Not all professors are left-wing goombahs. In my Business Statistics class yesterday, I used the much-discredited Kellerman study that claimed that a gun in the home was six times more likely to kill a resident than a criminal as an example of biased research where the sample was subject to a severe selection bias that led to an invalid conclusion. I called it a prime example of the unethical use of misleading statistics and pointed out that about 43% of the victims and 80-85% of the killers in that study had police records.
I have said for years that left-wingers strongly believe in free speech defined as the right to say anything that the left approves and nothing that the left disapproves. The professor in this situation was a despicable, dastardly, reprehensible example of a left-wing tyrant.
It continues to amaze me at age 65 and a NYC expat just how MANY imbeciles continue to survive in the shelter of academia. And BTW, I retired from a major university here not long ago. Believe me, CT has no monopoly on left-wing fools who, like Susie, seem unable to actually LEARN just what it is the Constitution guarantees re ANY of the Bill of Rights amendments. But maybe she’s blond…
Out here, a student group mounted a “Carry Concealed Holster” day. Put your cell phone in it, let it print under your shirt, and have a ball. In the 60s, we called this sort of thing rebellion. We still do.
Thank goodness for people like Mr. Wahlberg. This professor should be fired! If she can’t tell the difference between intelligent discussion and a real threat she better get a job at the zoo.
Paula Anderson has made your school the absolute laughing stock of the country. You folks must be incredibly proud.
At the very least Mz Anderson should post a list of approved topics to be discussed in her class. If she despises the freedoms we have in this country she should make it known at the door.
Embarrassing.
I find it highly embarassing that an institution of “higher learning” would allow itself to be characterized as not allowing free and open debate, regardless of the subject matter.
For a seemingly mature and educated Educator to state that she was listening to a student participating in a class discussion and feel “threatened” shows a total lack of objectivity.
I would hope that the school does a little personal soul-searching and take a look at trying to be less-biased and more open to free discourse.
The moment a jihadi will put an AK-47 against her head, our dear Commie Susie will be praying for Wahlberg to come in with an M4.
That girl is a clear leftist. Indoctrinated, blind, stupid. She may be a professor, but that means nothing on the long run.
I could bring tons of statistics that show that guns are not the problem. Partly even official statistics from the government here in Austria.
For example…
In 2001, the violent crimes resulting in death or injury in Austria were committed with the following weapons:
1% with legal rifles
3% with legal handguns
5% with illegal guns
44% with knives
34% any other weapon like axes, bats, etc
4% asphyxation and strangulation
9% “other”
4% of all the violent crimes in Austria in 2001 were done with legal guns.
Source: http://user336.pre.apconsult.at/img/Information%20fuer%20Journalisten.pdf page 6 and 7 (it’s German, so beware)
On page 5 this document tells us that the number of permits for guns in Austria has doubled between 1982 and 1998, yet the number of gun related crimes and violence dropped by 40%. But, according to the religion of the gun control freaks, the number of gun related violence and crimes should have, at least, doubled!
Anybody else thinks that’s funny? It shows how stupid the gun control freaks are and how little they know about anything.
She better not go to Texas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67FmVRjYs
Quite astonishing!!
A presentation on school violence including thoughts on the right of self defense leads to the professor making a complaint to police that the student is a danger, quite ironic that he IS most likely a danger…to her belief system.
Such dissent obviously can not be tolerated in her ivory tower.
BTW…regarding those whom feel that possession of firearms is outdated…all the dangers that caused the Fouders to include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution are alive and well…most likely they are a greater threat today than they were in the late 1700’s.
WOW, As an educator myself, I ENCOURAGED my students to discuss the 2nd Amendment and the topic of concealed carry on campus.
Man… I don’t even recognize this country anymore. This country is really turning into Nazi Germany.
Wake up, people! The actions of this professor is a perfect example of why this world is going down the toilet. Everyone has this idea that if we ban all the guns that violence will disappear, which certainly is NOT so. Here are some hard core facts for you, of which I have known for some time (and yes, even before all these cry babies decided to attack schools).
1. Less than 2 minutes after Australia banned certain guns, the crime rate sky rocketed to more than 300%.
2. In Switzerland, all males are required to serve in the military, and are required to own 3 types of firearms AND know how to use them. Furthermore, their crime rate is less than 1.3%.
3. Here is a “duh”….if someone is shooting at a large group of people, and no one has a weapon to defend themselves, then they will have to wait on the police to come save them, in which case the innocent person(s) WILL more than likely, be DEAD!
Point three highlights the fact that, as stated in our constitution, WE as a people have the right to carry guns. It doesn’t say anything about a certain group of people, it says ALL American citizens. Now I know that many anti-gun individuals are sitting there thinking, “that only makes crime worse!” No, THINK about it! If someone wants to break in to a home so they can steal stuff, are they gonna choose house 1 with no guns, or house 2 with guns? Is it right that an individual can’t shoot someone who has broken in to their safe-haven, their home to kill and rob them?
The main point is this…..criminals will never stop carrying weapons….no matter what laws get passed….PERIOD! It is only right to uphold our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The real problem lies with the mentality that for some strange reason, we must protect the criminals over the victims. I say punish the criminals and the crime will begin to fall, and stop being idiots who are too narrow minded to know the difference between a discussion or a threat. Our government and certain people who agree with this professor are only looking for reasons to target law abiding citizens and throw them in our already overpopulated jails and prison systems, while letting rapists and true murders walk free. Its time to wake up people!
ORIGINALLY 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.”
Free speech means that you allow others to speak freely, even if you disagree with them. But you call for a person to be put into prison without any evidence of a crime being committed, or any evidence that any crime was planned. Clearly you have not concept of what free speech means, nor the intent behind the First Amendment.
Based upon that, I would suspect that you likewise cannot have an informed opinion on the Second Amendment.
well Tom, like all good stereotypes the one about Ct is wrong
yes we do have the biff and muffys from Yale & Harvard that speak through clenched teeth as portrayed in so many movies, but they are few and far between, concentrated in Fairfield area near U nork and scattered throughout the high scale towns
but Ct is a serious melting pot that is on low simmer
we have them all cept for New Haven which is 50% Illegal Alien thanks to it’s idiotic mayor who even instructed the police not to arrest illegals even if they are wanted by the feds………AND HIS NAME IS NOT RIOS OR SANCHEZ, IT’S DESTEFANO, HE’S ITALIAN.. go figure
he thinks they are like his Italian fore fathers who came through Ellis Island
hardly the same
This is unconscionable. The professor should be fired AND given the Left’s favorite corrective treatment: sensitivity training!
Good Lord, what did you expect? You’re in a liberal State, going to a liberal college, and have a liberal professor. Why are your firearms registered in the first place? Registration then confiscation. With your patriotic views, you should move to a State that understands and believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why live and go to college in a State that believes and lives in a dream world? As Horest Greely once said “Go west young man, go west”.
Threatened By a Non Threat.
I like it.
Has she apologized yet??
I love America but there are too many wankers in it, too many that cannot use logic or think things through.
They just run on what they feel and truly believe that the universe revolves around them…the World according to Ms. Anderson, or should I say Prof. Anderson??
I amazes me how many people have Masters or PhD’s and are complete idiots, caught in their little world, their version of reality, they have no clue what is really going on.
Like Rell, now some company paid off our politicians to install cameras that will take your picture and mail you a speeding ticket.
The system will cost us a million to put in, and the company will run it, it has failed in other states so they need more business, this at a time when the state can afford nothing
but
they guarantee hundreds of millions in tickets- just the states cut, yes they take a cut for running it
now logically, how is some punk that is adjusting this machine, and who stands to make more profit for more tickets going to be fair??, yes the company will calibrate it for the state too
I will not accept a ticket from anyone other than a sworn officer of the state
I know off topic but lately it seems we are running on illogic
illogical behavior ticks me off, what is right is right, what will work is what is right
it has been proven time and time again that the police cannot save you unless they happen to be at the scene at that moment
chances are 1,456,987,876 to 1 they won’t be
what we need is like a new Militia, ordinary citizens trained in self defense and weapons and first aid, take an oathe and are given immunity to act in situations that could save lives until the police arrive
because with this economy it’s going to get worse
How did professor Anderson achieve her professorship? The woman is singularly lacking in critical thinking skills…which I always believed was the very PURPOSE of a college education. To “report” this young man to the police because he gave a talk about an obvious solution to the problem of on-campus armed violence is the height of stupidity. No wonder the level of excellence in our college graduates is declining so rapidly (as noticed by at least one national career-search company). We have “professors” who think if you discuss a subject, you must advocate for it. That’s as moronic as claiming the rational discussion of race relations by an Anglo is [i]prima facie[/i] proof that the Anglo is a racist. Oh wait! Rahm Emmanual has already said that, hasn’t he?
As far as gunowners being disrespectful of authority it is interesting to note that someone wishing to purchase a handgun in CT – must attend a 10 hour class, go to a local police station, fill in an application, be fingerprinted, have a compete background check done, provide letters of reference, then go to the police to pick up the temporary permit , then drive to the public safety building or other state police facility to be photographed and then pay $35 for a licence to carry. In 5 years they apply again — talk about disrespect for authority
After all that work no one wants to lose a permit. Crimes are not typically committed by legal gun owners who demonstrate a respect for the law but rather by criminals who do not respect the legal system. Our legal system also helps the situation by failing to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law.
In the late 1960’s the late Col. Jeff Cooper coined the phrase that best describes Prof. Anderson’s condition -hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons. These people often espouse the belief that they would rather be “raped and murdered” before killing someone in self defense. I don’t entirely disagree with this Darwinian attitude as it will over time thin the herd of the weaker members.
Unfortunately this moronic mindset permeates the .edu world. What could be more horrifying then to be in “lock-down” in a classroom with some maniac shooting at you with out a means to defend yourself?
Everyday countless families send their children to schools in our communities entrusting their lives to these “adults” what have no interest in protecting their lives in an emergency. It is a crime that these un-educated, un-willing and inept have such a strangle hold on our children’s wellbeing.
Obviously nothing was learned from the shootings at VT and Columbine. The lesson of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs shooting was also lost on these “professors”.
I hope a good lawyer takes up his case and sues the hell out of that professor for her idiocy, the cops for harrasment, and the school for hiring that idiot teacher. And possibly the school for infringing on his right to protect himself.
ORIGINALLY 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.”
Susie, I hope you never need anyone to come to your defense against an armed criminal since you obviously wouldn’t want anyone to defend you with a firearm. You’re clueless, you live in a world full of rainbows. I hope reality sets in for you one day.
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY R.SMITH
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. Gun rights groups are clearly outdated models based on past failures of social policy meant to protect the people. 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. What if just one child would be shot innocently, taking away his future, because someone wanted to carry on campus. 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. 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. 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.
You obviously also need a reality check. Think about how many fewer victims there would have been at virginia tech had a law-abiding concealed-carry permit holder was nearby. It took the police ten minutes to even enter the building, do some fact-checking before you spout your foolish anti-gun rhetoric.
If you want a good grade write a paper or give a speach your teacher will agree with, after all he is a liberal democrat who knows what is best for you and everyone else. I am sure you have all heard about the Connecticut home invasion where three people lost their lives, Mr. liberal professor would be protesting the death penalty for the convicts who committed the crime. As a licensed gun owner, and competition shooter I hope I never have to take a life or defend myself with any of my weapons, I would rather use a Chanel-locks pliers so they can suffer for a week before they die.
There was obviously a threat. It’s a threat to the professor’s belief system that being helpless little cutesy lambs will convince the bag bad wolf that he’s really not hungry.
Just remeber that Utah has allowed their CCW holders to carry for years now on campus. The liberal media, biased leftist professors, and incompetent adminstrators do not like to talk about that and will do anything to avoid its mention. This is because Utah provides hard evidence that *gasp* college students can actually make adult decisions while showing they are not beer-drinking, psychotic people looking to shoot up their school.
Admins and campus police have also for years tried every trick in the book to show their on campus crime stats are “acceptable” which is a joke. After finding out what crime was REALLY like in and around WCSU I carried for almost my entire 4 years on campus (I have a CT CCW). I carried to all classes, student center, admin building, library, West side, etc etc. Not a single person knew I carried and *shock* I do not recall ever going on a ramapage.
This professor and others of her ilk needs to be removed from teaching. I will bet- and not lose money- that if this students report had been anti-gun they would have received effusive praise and an A. God forbid someone do a report against left wing sensibilities- oh my what would we do? I know- lets report them to the campus police! Soon we may actually have the Thought Police around for these dingbat “professors” to report anyone not spewing the Party Line in thoughts and speech.
I don’t know if the actions of Police or the Professor are more ridiculous.
The report or field interview with the professor should have went something like this… (officer = O, professor = P)
O: So what I understand is that the student gave an inclass, required, oral presentation on school violence- is that correct:
P: Yes, but…
O: And during the presentation he opined that had someone been legally carrying a concealed weapon, that person could have intervened and saved lives?
P: Yes, but…
O: And from that your feel he is a threat to you and others?
P: Yes, because…
O: And you are telling me that other students, students complaining to you but not to the police, were also threatened by this non-threat Wahlberg utters?
P: I feel it was a threat!
O: Did he say, “I’ll kill you? I’ll hurt you, I’ll kill everyone in this room, I’ll hurt her or him?”
P: No, but he could have meant that!
O: From, “A person with a lawfully concealed gun could have saved lives, you devine the meaning, ‘I’ll kill my teacher and classmates?” From someone advocatign self-defense you devine criminal threat?
P: But, see…
O: Professor, the student complied with your dictate to give an oral presentation in class. He didn’t issue a threat as defined by state law or local ordinance. I will check him out for any warrants for his arrest. Thank you for reporting this.
Officer hangs up the phone, “Hey, Charley, guess what Professor Anderson just reported…”
I wonder….
did the Campus Police use water boarding to interrogate Mr Walberg ??
“ach tung, vhat group made you give zis speech mistah waalllllburg, eh?, vwe shall find outs, und vwhen wez do stheres going to be stroubles, und a lot of spankings, no one vwill be talkings about prrrrrrotectings zemselves on zis campus” ; )