Firearms and Freedom

¿Freedom?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

We ought not be surprised:

"Be careful discussing sensitive topics," professors at the University of Houston were warned in a faculty meeting about the new "campus carry" gun policy.

An unofficial forum of professors suggested that teachers may want to "drop certain topics from your curriculum," and "not ‘go there' if you sense anger," the Houston Chronicle reports.

A new Texas law will allow people to carry concealed handguns on university campuses.

Jeffrey Villines, a Ph.D. student in the university's English department, shared a photo of what he said is a slide from a "recent campus carry dialogue at UH, in response to faculty concerns about dangers from armed students" ....

.... A spokesperson at the University of Houston stressed in a message to Salon that this slide was not created by the university's Campus Carry Workgroup and "is not official policy." The spokesperson also indicated that the university's draft policy is expected to be released in the next week.

(Norton↱)​

No, really. Imagine that. Legislature passes law to allow guns in classrooms. Professors worry about safety. Advice is given to just do nothing to upset the people with guns.

Once again, we see just how gun-loving patriots protect our freedom.

One need not postulate conspiracy theories; this manner of isn't-that-convenient is a properly American habit―file under, "Don't Pretend We Couldn't See That One Coming".

Once upon a time I could be seen using the phrase, "conceptual integrity"; the basic idea is that one's argument should remain consistent enough throughout so as not to defeat itself.

So much for the Second Amendment protecting the rest of our rights.

Question for the "responsible gun owners": Does it bug you at all when thoughtless fools reduce your constitutional rights to morbid farce?

Thus, "responsible gun owner" neighbors, it's your turn. They're not listening to us, so you explain it to them. That is to say, you really, really don't like it when society deals with these problems, so why don't you do the rest of us the kind favor of your simple duty to your beloved guns, and explain it to them, before this gets any further out of hand?
____________________

Notes:

Norton, Ben. "Don't teach 'sensitive topics' or anger students, Houston professors are warned after 'campus carry' gun law passed". Salon. 23 February 2016. Salon.com. 24 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1QeZAAQ

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Noone should ever be afraid of pissing off gun nuts. These people live in a state of constant anger and obsession and paranoia. It's their natural modus operandi. If the mere mention of "gun control" makes a crowd of gun nuts go off and spaz out, that's their fault not ours. I'm convinced they have real mental problems. Maybe that's why they're so scared of background checks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guns are forbidden over here, and while crimes like theft are higher than in the USA, severe crimes that include violence and body harm are less.

Without guns, it's quite a bit safer, I think, even if a shop owner can shoot down a thief so easily.

It's also easier for the police - anyone who carries a gun is very suspicious right away. And policemen are safer, because the average person, regardless how enraged, can't shoot them, having no gun. Criminals who own a gun must hide it very carefully, because it will scream "criminal here" right away.

I know in other countries the opinion is different, but I must say, I like our "no guns" policy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really. You aren't in a gang, or dealing drugs, or suicidal, yes? Then you're about as safe as I am in the US, to within a hundredth of a percent or so.

The concealed carry laws are new, and the one in Texas is idiotic, but it's easy not to live in Texas - and if you did, that wouldn't be your major worry.

 

isn't that essentially an admission that gun owners are terrorists? its give them what they want so they won't hurt us.

 

I'm in Texas, I own weapons and use my backyard shooting range often. I carry when I have to, and it makes me more careful in my behavior as well as more cognizant of folks around me.

The open carry law here applies only to people who have had background checks and training for a CHL. That said, there's nothing preventing a responsible permit holder from "going off" any more than a "responsible" driver becoming a road rage statistic.

What's your point? That universities are overrun by people who would rather protest anyone else's freedom of choice, to the point of violence, rather than actually learn something useful?

Seems to me that the so-called liberals are the ones screaming loudest for violent solutions to imagined social injustices: "Can I get some muscle over here?"

Bah.

 

Funny, I read that and assumed it was a commentary on the self-censorship and intolerance of so many US university campuses nowadays.

 

That would seem to be the implication. To the other, nobody in the University of Houston Faculty Senate is rushing forward to take responsibility and explain what happened.

And the thing is that despite my own personal temptation to chuckle and mutter, "The truth comes out, at last," the actual truth is that people can do this to themselves without realizing it.

To the other, a lot of people get accustomed to it. We might be familiar enough with the notion that the government can have their gun upon prying it from cold, dead fingers, but we've essentially reached the point where that attitude seems present in the question of responsible gun ownership, because we all know it's unfair to punish "responsible gun owners" by actually expecting them to be responsible, and, hey, what are we gonna do, 'cause they've got guns.

Nonetheless, there is exactly no reason we should be surprised by this episode. To the one, it's firearm owners. To the other, it's Texas. To the beeblebrox, this is America. And if we need a fourth in order to have an excuse to stay home and lick ourselves, they are, after all, human.

Then again, "responsible gun owners" aren't exactly rushing to distance themselves from this menace.

• • •​

I'm sure that makes sense in its own context, but the one that sticks out to me is how conservatives don't get it and can't tell the difference. In that manner, certes, I can see a functional context. The only problem there is that it would boil down to a conservative says something stupid and it's to be held against liberals because, you know, that pesky Liberal University Conspiracy.

 

I have noticed that stupidity transcends labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

Just sayin'...

 

Trump - and/or his supporters - seem to be a living testimony to that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

True.

Also an interesting fallback position.

 

Fall back from where?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is clear and obvious that the state likes it very much if the sheeple are not allowed to own any weapons, and only the army and police can have them. In democracies, the state will, therefore, spend a lot to "convince" the sheeple that they are much safer without any weapons.

The main advantage of the freedom of having weapons is that this may prevent the state to overdue suppressing the sheeple, because in this case even sheeple may start a revolution.

In most states, this problem is solved by very restrictive rules forbidding the sheeple to own weapons.

In the US, this problem is solved in a different way. They have now police force with weapons and training like an army, and they have already prepared FEMA KZs. So, they think they can win against any revolution by the sheeple with their simple weapons for self defense.

 

Well, you tried this↑:

What's your point? That universities are overrun by people who would rather protest anyone else's freedom of choice, to the point of violence, rather than actually learn something useful?

Seems to me that the so-called liberals are the ones screaming loudest for violent solutions to imagined social injustices: "Can I get some muscle over here?"​

And then fell back to this↑:

I have noticed that stupidity transcends labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

Just sayin'...​

And I get how the politics work, but come on, that's not a very graceful transition from trying to pick a fight with liberals to trying to duck your own point.

The truth of the matter is that we can count pretty much anything conservatives don't like as "liberal". That's one of the intended symptoms of the conservative abuse of the word. It is entirely possible, for instance, to believe that this UH Faculty Senate suggestion came from a "liberal" ... in Texas. Which, in turn, is far more conservative than, say, liberalism.

In the end, the suggested outcome is more conservative than liberalism; making it about liberals probably isn't the best of ideas, especially since the conservative-bully outcome also helps conservative-bully politics.

The underlying proposition also recognizes the question of someone pulling a gun because they don't like what a professor has to say. And in that vein we might recall history. Twenty-five years ago, the idea was to legislate the perspective of government in such a manner as to force the medical school curricula to promote religious propaganda instead of proper medical and scientific information. Earlier this year, a crazy man influenced by anti-scientific propaganda shot up a medical clinic in Colorado. Over the years, we have painfully and deliberately looked away from any connection, dismissing these criminals as crazy outliers. But we're also in a time when the crazy outliers are on a rampage, and not quite as outlying as we had thought. That someone might pull a gun for stupid reasons is an inevitable consideration.

And let's face it, odds are it won't be a liberal like me jacking the room because Professor Jones didn't say enough bad things about trickle-down.

It isn't liberals like me holding Texas schools to a false educational standard intended to indoctrinate students into fake heritage.

If we get down to the basic public-square politics, there is, in fact, an identifiable culprit.

And I think you know that.

Nonetheless, your fallback is correct: Stupidity transcends labels.

Probably works better when that's the primary position, not the retreat. Because beyond that are questions of etiology, pathology, and various facets of philosophy (ontology, epistemology, &c.). And here we start to see not simply the differences, but the reasons underlying those differences.

In different circumstances, these questions would themselves be different; this, however, is the world we have, not the one we specifically wish for. I would very much like to believe these open-carry notions are as benign or even societally progressive as the firearms lobby wants us to think, but reality simply disagrees.

Out of curiosity, there's a phrase we don't use much, anymore: "Mexican standoff". What do we call it if it's, say, a hundred people instead of three? "Daisy Chain"?

Look, I'm not going to fault the "responsible gun owner" at Umpqua who decided to stay the hell out of it; but I do think at some point we ought to start considering the real effects of all these allegedly noble principles. If open-carry intimidates academia into silence, then yes, we will need our "responsible" gun-owning neighbors to explain to us just how their Second Amendment right is protecting the rest of our rights.

 

I'm afraid I cannot work out what your reply is intended to convey. One what? What is the "it" that conservatives don't get? "certes"? (= certainly?) "Functional context"? What is the "it" that would boil down to a conservative saying something stupid and having it held against liberals?

Can you express yourself more clearly?

 

Why do you have guns at all? Do you live such a life that you have to use it to protect yourself? Who are you protecting yourself from? Have you shot anyone yet? Do you plan to someday?

 

If I owned a gun it would be for hunting. Texans apparently use them for learning?

 

Texans claim carrying guns makes them feel safer. Funny thing is, I don't feel safer at all when everyone I see is carrying a gun. Carrying a gun DOES make people feel more powerful. Would you argue with anyone who is carrying a gun?

 

A person carrying a firearm is much less likely to be drawn into an argument, given that the person owns the weapon and has the legal rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

p.s. Someone who 'feels more powerful' with a gun probably needs to be watched, and not allowed to have one.

 

that's cute. sadly reality has shown us a much different picture. people carrying guns tend to be more aggressive and willing to get into arguments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect