GarfieldJL Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html Apparently a Teacher called the cops on a student whom presented a pro-Gun stance as to why teachers and students at the college level should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Liberal targeting free speech or is it a teacher targeting free speech? If the teacher called 911 without merit then she should be charged like the woman that called 911 because McDonald's were out of Chicken McNuggets. So yes, this maybe an overreaction by the teacher (depending on the facts) and should be dealt with by local law enforcement. And yes, it is an overreaction by the media for turning possible stupidly by one teacher into a liberal basing platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Sensationalism: "Critics of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argue that colleges and universities are dedicated to the free flow of ideas,” she said. “Yet when a student gives a class presentation on a relevant issue in the media, it is acceptable to label the student as a threat? The only threat posed was a threat to the professor’s personal beliefs.” Duquette said there was no evidence to support that. And even if it is true, it's not "zOMG the Liberals!" - it's one person. Read your own article. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Look up what many liberals typically want to ban sometime EnderWiggin, you'll find that doing away with the second amendment is towards the top. If you look at the article, it apparently isn't an isolated incident. And mimartin, you're comparing apples to oranges, the two cases aren't even remotely similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Look up what many liberals typically want to ban sometime EnderWiggin, you'll find that doing away with the second amendment is towards the top.This teacher is not part of some massive liberal conspiracy to demoralize the country she is acting on her own will. The notion that every liberal-minded individual shares the same agenda and set of ideals is so fallacious to even comprehend. If you look at the article, it apparently isn't an isolated incident.Perhaps, but it does not provide any evidence that each incident is connected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So Joe the Plumber speaks for all conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 This teacher is not part of some massive liberal conspiracy to demoralize the country she is acting on her own will. The notion that every liberal-minded individual shares the same agenda and set of ideals is so fallacious to even comprehend. Doesn't have to be a giant conspiracy, it can just be simple intolerance that is legitimized in how instructors are taught, or there needs to be classes on teaching tolerence when it comes to differences in opinion. Perhaps, but it does not provide any evidence that each incident is connected. Not saying there is, I'm just saying that this isn't just an isolated fluke, I don't think it's a vast conspiracy. I just think it's the usual intolerance to other people's opinions where people are viewed to be evil simply because they don't agree. So Joe the Plumber speaks for all conservatives? No, he just represents how people are demonized if they make the "anointed one" look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Look up what many liberals typically want to ban sometime EnderWiggin, you'll find that doing away with the second amendment is towards the top. I'm aware of that, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. However, the article you provided is not evidence for the "Liberal Targetting [sic] of Free Speech" that you are asserting is occurring. If you would provide a set of premises that could be proven perhaps then we would be more inclined to agree with your conclusion. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Calling the cops on someone saying they are a threat just for a postion they took in a persuasive speech? Looks like a 1st Amendment Violation to me, and btw, the 2nd Amendment is the keystone amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 So Joe the Plumber speaks for all conservatives?No, that's Rush Limbaugh. And mimartin, you're comparing apples to oranges, the two cases aren't even remotely similar.Two people frivolously calling 911 are not related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 No, that's Rush Limbaugh. No, Rush just happens to be the Conservative voice Obama is targetting. Two people frivolously calling 911 are not related. One called it to try to get someone arrested for their viewpoints, the other just called 911 out of stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 One called it to try to get someone arrested for their viewpoints, the other just called 911 out of stupidity. The professor didn't call to get someone arrested for their viewpoints, the professor called because she felt the student's viewpoints meant that he might have a bit of an itchy trigger finger. She's still stupid for thinking he was going to shoot up the school, but it's not like she was deliberately trying to squash political opinions she didn't approve of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 The professor didn't call to get someone arrested for their viewpoints, the professor called because she felt the student's viewpoints meant that he might have a bit of an itchy trigger finger. She's still stupid for thinking he was going to shoot up the school, but it's not like she was deliberately trying to squash political opinions she didn't approve of. Well the point is still the same, because the student thought that some of the shootings wouldn't have resulted in many fatalities if students had concealed firearms, and said as such. The teacher felt threatened because of her beliefs, that is actually classic subconscious intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well the point is still the same, because the student thought that some of the shootings wouldn't have resulted in many fatalities if students had concealed firearms, and said as such. The teacher felt threatened because of her beliefs, that is actually classic subconscious intolerance. Her intent was ultimately to protect her students, not to get the kid arrested for his opinion. She wasn't "targeting free speech." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Her intent was ultimately to protect her students, not to get the kid arrested for his opinion. She wasn't "targeting free speech." You should really look at the comments of those that support her. Many of them feel he should be arrested for espousing his beliefs that concealed carry can be a good thing. Some have even said that They "believe in free speech, except when it comes to guns." That would be restricting free speech. I guess it's ok... that whole boiling the live frog thing. We get more used to little restrictions. Further and further along. But hey that's ok. I mean first we get the USA PATRIOT ACT, which gave the government more power than it should have(Yes, I'm quite aware that Republicans supported it, doesn't mean I'm going to). Now the Democrats intend to restrict the second. You watch it will eventually lead to free speech being limited free speech. Those first two ammendments apparently don't mean much.. guess we can just throw them out... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 You should really look at the comments of those that support her. Many of them feel he should be arrested for espousing his beliefs that concealed carry can be a good thing. Some have even said that They "believe in free speech, except when it comes to guns." That would be restricting free speech. I guess it's ok... that whole boiling the live frog thing. We get more used to little restrictions. Further and further along. But hey that's ok. I mean first we get the USA PATRIOT ACT, which gave the government more power than it should have(Yes, I'm quite aware that Republicans supported it, doesn't mean I'm going to). Now the Democrats intend to restrict the second. You watch it will eventually lead to free speech being limited free speech. Those first two ammendments apparently don't mean much.. guess we can just throw them out... right? What others feel about this has nothing at all to do with the motivation of the professor. To make it clear, the professor's stated reason for calling the cops was: According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police. “It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she told 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.” not, According to The Recorder, Anderson cited intense intolerance of opposite views and hatred of the 2nd amendment as her reason for calling the police. “I just hate gun freaks and I wanted him to be tazered because he loves his guns more than I hate America.” To clarify, I'm more on the pro-gun(within reason: assault rifles and those faster in firing speeds are not really weapons meant for defense) side. Not because I use them, but both because its a constitutionally protected right and because a lack of legal guns in America doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of guns total. However, it's just annoying that a professor's extremely misguided attempt to protect her students is portrayed as some symbol of the left wing's disgust for free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Where the heck did she get that he was a threat. She made it up on her own. He spoke of how better to protect, not how to kill. If you can show me HOW she could POSSIBLY see him as a threat, I might agree. Because he is pro gun? Did he threaten anyone? Did he threaten HER? The only thing he was a threat to was her belief system. I dunno, maybe she suffers from hoplophobia. Do you even know what legal gun owners have to go through in CT? Like a legal gun owner in CT is going to risk losing their right to own a firearm that easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 You don't walk into a police station and explain why heroin should be legal to the drug squad. You don't walk into a children's hospital and present a paper on why pedophilia should be legal. You don't walk into a WW2 Holocaust survivor meeting present to them why Hitler should have won. You don't go to an AA meeting and explain to them why Drunk Driving is the best thing since sliced bread. And you don't walk onto to a school campus, enter a classroom, and then present a powerpoint on why you and others should be able to carry hidden guns on school campus on a topic about school shootings. With all the media and hysteria on school shootings and the tension they leave behind, what the hell did this guy think he was doing? You need to sit back and look at this from a teacher's perspective: A student she barely knows comes into her class every day and interacts with other students. He then, when called up, presents a powerpoint on why he, yourself, and other students should be allowed to carry guns on a school campus as a defense for school shootings. That can translate to a number of things. Shoot the shooter before he shoots you? Stop him with your gun? Non-violently keep him down with your gun pointed at him? She did what she thought was safe, and I believe many teacher's would have done the same. Why? My History teacher told us at the beginning of my junior year that if we presented anything supporting slavery, nazi's, genocide, or racism in his classroom that he would give us a no questions asked referral. Why? Because his family was jewish and had survived the holocaust. Is it an infringement on freedom of speech? In definition, yes. It is. I will not disagree with anyone on that. It should be the students right to go in front of the class and tell them that he wished 10 million more jews had been killed. But there is just some **** you don't say. You don't walk up to a police officer and ask him if he knows any drug dealers. It is perfectly legal to, as he has no proof you are going to search one out and buy anything, but that wont stop him from pinning you and checking you for narcotics. Its common sense. Should she have called the police? Should he have been allowed to explain why bringing guns onto campus is OK? It is as much his legal right to do so as it is the guy to ask the officer about drug dealer locations. This is not an attack on a belief system. This is not an attack by some huge group with an agenda. This is common ****ing sense at work, and he should have had enough to realize that being pro-gun concealment on school campus' during a time still reeling from school shootings, and presenting said argument in a school shooting presentation would get you in trouble with said school. I would have called him on it at least. I would have told him to do another one. If it was as extreme as she thinks it was, then I may have called the office, counselor, or authorities as well. He was perfectly in his right to say and believe so. He broke no actual laws. What he did do was something completely lacking common sense. What he did do was break a social law. The police, regardless of your so called freedom of speech, do not take kindly to be asked about drug locations, informed a students wants to carry a gun on campus, or other dumb comments like that. The fact the police acted on this call at all means they take a comment like this seriously. Are the police always right? No, but it is their job to look for signs and to make sure things do not happen. They took his powerpoint seriously enough to consider asking him a few questions and making sure nothing was out of the ordinary. Freedom of speech does not exist. There is no such thing as actual freedom, because nothing is free. By law you have the right to yell out in a mall "I have a bomb strapped to my chest!", but that doesn't mean you aren't going get the police called on you. You have the right to stand up and announce to a classroom that you believe pedophilia should be legal. Does that mean you should? Maybe you aren't a pedophile, and are just being devil's advocate. But do you think for a second you wont get your ass fired and never be allowed to teach again? You have the right to say that blacks should be lynched, jews burned alive, and women kept in cages on the air because of freedom of speech. That doesn't mean, however, you wont get fired from your anchorman position for doing so. Freedom of speech will never exist as long as there are social laws in place, which means you must be open for ANYONE saying ANYTHING at ANYTIME and ANYPLACE. There will be no regulations on what teachers can say in a class. There will be no regulations on threats etc on school campus'. Nothing. Every word would have to be acceptable by our civilization for every single person on the planet to hear at anytime. It means we would be allowed to explain and teach kids about homosexuality whenever, where ever. If you complain, they get to sue you for infringing on their freedom of speech. Beastiality, etc would have to be perfectly acceptable in a classroom because the teacher has the right to say whatever she wants. Isn't not allowing children to watch pornography against freedom of speech? Its censorship after all. Freedom of speech? I've never met someone who believed in freedom of speech and I doubt that will change soon. It has been limited speech since the day of its creation when africans were also named only part of the worth of a white man. Again, its common sense. There is **** you don't say, because there are social laws in effect ontop of actual laws. It may be illegal to fire you for expressing your opinion, but that does not mean your boss can't find some legit reason to fire you. Is this bad? Is this good? To be honest, I do not have that answer and probably never will. (If I got some laws wrong in my examples, I apologize. Its 1 in the morning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 No, not the same thing at all TA. For one thing the topic for research projects was relevant issues in the media. This was a college level course, not some random location. He didn't have to seek them out. He wasn't discussing a desire to commit illegal acts, but discussing something that he feels should be legal. Another source My favorite quote on this “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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The teacher felt threatened because of her beliefs, that is actually classic subconscious intolerance. Stop spouting bull****. You have no idea whether or not the teacher "felt threatened because of her beliefs." All you can do is speculate as to the reasoning behind her 911 call, even though you have no evidence besides the one point - that she is 'Liberal'. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Stop spouting bull****. You have no idea whether or not the teacher "felt threatened because of her beliefs." All you can do is speculate as to the reasoning behind her 911 call, even though you have no evidence besides the one point - that she is 'Liberal'. _EW_ That and the fact that she called the cops over his project. Though I do think that there is a bit of overreaction, I still feel that this was extremely bad. It's only free speach if I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Stop spouting bull****. You have no idea whether or not the teacher "felt threatened because of her beliefs." All you can do is speculate as to the reasoning behind her 911 call, even though you have no evidence besides the one point - that she is 'Liberal'. Quite frankly I would suggest you take your own advice. As Tommycat pointed out we can infer that the teacher is a liberal. The fact she called the cops also points out she felt threatened by the fact that the student had a viewpoint that differed with hers. Furthermore, True_Avery stop distorting the issue, all the kid said was that he believed if students had been allowed to carry concealed firearms the number of fatalities at some of these school shootings would be significantly less. That isn't the same as what you're saying it is, or are you saying people are criminals for owning a firearm or being against gun-control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Quite frankly I would suggest you take your own advice. As Tommycat pointed out we can infer that the teacher is a liberal. The fact she called the cops also points out she felt threatened by the fact that the student had a viewpoint that differed with hers.How do you know that she was liberal? Just because she felt that there was potential danger (which was totally an overreaction, IMO), how does that show potential liberalness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 One called it to try to get someone arrested for their viewpoints, the other just called 911 out of stupidity. In your bias opinion against liberals they are different. In my opinion both cases point to stupidity and/or overreactions. However, since I don’t have your extraordinary cognitive ability to know what people thousands of miles motivations are without any real personal information to understand that person, I will hold off judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I find the irony of this thread being created by the same person who cried foul at every news article about a teacher that was vocally in support of Obama during the election to be quite delightful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.