Free Utah Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

February 28, 2009

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation

Filed under: Freedom of Speech,Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 4:54 pm

24 Feb 2009 – “The Record” online, Central Connecticut State University
-Shauna Simeone, Asst. Opinion Editor

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.”

February 26, 2009

It is closer to reality than you think

Filed under: Right to Keep and Bear Arms — admin @ 9:31 am

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.  With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.  You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.  In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.  As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.  When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.  As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.  The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.  After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

A Similar case really happened.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp

(Note that the above referenced link differs some from this story below)

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.  In April, 2000, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.  The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.  Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.  The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.  Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.  Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed.  Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams

February 24, 2009

The Stimulus Plan

Filed under: Government — admin @ 1:03 pm

This was sent to me in a email and I found so much truth in it that I had to share….

WORK AT THE WHITEHOUSE

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.

One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.

All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. “Well,” he says, “I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, “I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Chicago contractor doesn’t measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, “$2,700.”

The official, incredulous, says, “You didn’t even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?”

The Chicago contractor whispers back, “$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence.”

“Done!” replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

February 23, 2009

Vote With Your Dollars

Think about it . . . every time you spend money you are voting. Are you voting to preserve morality and freedom, or are you voting for corruption and despotism?

Part of every dollar you spend gets donated to further some cause. This is just a fact of business.  All businesses support “non profit” organizations in one form or another, and the bigger the business the more money they feed to such organizations. The only way you can influence where this money goes is by adjusting your spending habits and telling companies why you choose not to do business with them.

While you are giving this some thought, think also about the fact that freedom and morality are inseparably connected.  It is impossible for an immoral people to remain free.

February 21, 2009

Understanding Modern Government

Filed under: Government — admin @ 8:59 pm

As tedious as it is, Atlas Shrugged has something to teach us. Don’t bother to read the book though, all you need to know is in the following quote:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against–then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted–and you create a nation of law-breakers–and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Cowards in the Utah Senate

Filed under: Family,Freedom of Speech,Government,Religion — admin @ 7:25 pm

The past few days have seen the media and the proponents of immorality mount a vicious attack against State Senator Chris Buttars for speaking out against the radical homosexual movement.

While it sickens me to see Reed Cowan and others abuse the the freedom of the press to mount a personal attack on someone to try and sooth their own guilty conscience over abandoning the values they once held dear, it is even worse to see those who should be standing up and supporting Senator Buttars turn into cowards. The actions of the Republican leadership in the Utah State Senate in censuring Senator Buttars is nothing but pure cowardice.

Powered by WordPress

© 1999-2020 Free Utah All Rights Reserved