University professor calls cops after presentation on gun rights
A few months ago I wrote that some people tend to freak out at the sight of a gun magazine let alone an actual firearm. Many thought I was exaggerating. Right. Well now we have a university student presenting a topic concerning Second Amendment rights and the professor calls the cops.
Hat tip to reader Jerry. Read the post on Central Connecticut State Universities (CCSU) The Recorder Online.
Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
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. [more]
Nothing like a little First Amendment bashing of those speaking about the dreaded Second Amendment.
Wahlberg was called to the CCSU police department – a division of the Connecticut State Police – where they listed off the firearms registered to him and asked him where they were kept. Talk about harassment.
Before commenting further on Wahlberg’s presentation, it would be great to actually see it in video format, the slides or the presentation notes.
Does anyone know how to get in contact with Wahlberg to see if we can get a copy of his presentation?
10 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
I see this crap on campus, in several different forms. Repression of speech comes from intimidation or outright harassment (and I use the correct pronunciation of that word, by the way, not the sanitized media version).
Methinks Paula Anderson has her liberal panties in a bunch. If she didn't like the topic, she should have specified her unnatural fears ahead of time.
It sounds like Wahlberg made quite an impression. I would love to have a copy of that presentation myself!
Dims,
I'll say it again.You have to get a show.
Rush: do you really want to see the "Fairness" doctrine enacted? LOL!
What you people are not understanding is that on campus the first amendmaent only matters if you are agreeing wth the teacher. You guys are silly!
I took Comm 140 under Ms. Anderson at CCSU. It does not surprise me in the least that she did this. We had to give an impromptu speech at one point, and I gave a elegy for my uncle (who's last name was Anderson). She thought I chose that name because of her name being Anderson.
Seeing as I am a student at CCSU, I can see if I can get in touch with John but not sure.
Out of curiosity, what charge did she imagine the police would arrest these youths under?
She sounds like this woman…
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0…
It seemes that the 2amendment really mades the libs very nervous. They really
don't know why it's in the constitution.It must have been important to make into the top ten. The old quote armed you are a citizen unarmed your a subject.
I think you hit the nail on the head! Democrats thrive on subjects in thrall to them, not citizens quite capable and desirous of living without them.
It also justifies questioning their intentions: why is a lawfully armed citizenry such a threat to them? The people that actually commit crimes with guns are reflexively defended and protected by liberals (as opposed to the lawful gun owner acting in self defense), so they can be "rehabilitated" and get out of jail to commit more crime.
At the core of matters, their issue is one of control. An armed populace is harder to bully into serfdom than an unarmed one. As Dims points out, they are less interested in prosecuting criminals than they are of disarming law-abiding citizens.
Y'see, gun-control, pretty much by definition, is not an anti-crime measure, if only because the only folks who will obey such a law are the law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to get illegal arms out of the hands of criminals. Our Founding Fathers had a few things to say on the subject…
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Contrast these two august individuals with some folks from the left-wing of the political spectrum…
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)