The Recorder

Comments (231)

All The Recorder Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • L

    LucenutDec 8, 2010 at 6:39 am

    What scared me was that the police had a list of "registered firearms" on the guy. That frightens me! I would like to hear Mr Wahlberg's answers to the police. He should have said "it's none of your business, am I being detained or am I free to go?"

    Reply
  • M

    Mike from Rockford, ILMar 9, 2009 at 5:51 am

    Paula Anderson should be fired. To interfere with our students free thinking process is a crime in itself. These are the same tactics Stalin and Hitler used to brainwash the youth. How dare an educator call the police on a student expressing his right of free speech and the right to bear arms. This is sick and another example of how the powers that be are leading us into complete socialism.

    Reply
  • C

    CajohnMar 8, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    If the Virginia Tech killer knew that state law allowed concealed weapons, would he have padlocked himself inside that campus building?

    His plan had as its premise, nobody will be able to fight back. He locked himself inside to keep anyone outside from stopping him.

    The logic of this "professor" is, abolish guns and no one will be afraid. That is not logic. That is fantasy.

    Reply
  • S

    Sam WaiteMar 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Every time I run across an incontinent invertebrate, low intelligence ‘professor’ like Paula Anderson, I am appalled and afraid for the Profession. Which ever University granted her college degrees should revoke them. She has demonstrated her own incompetence and negligence for her craft and students. In addition she has shown an amazing lack of judgment and a propensity for political socialist ideology totalitarianism.
    With this abuse of official responsibility, I would not recommend Forest Gump to apply to CCSU.
    I do hope that the student does seek legal counsel for this assault against his First and Second Amendment individual rights.
    Sieg Heil!! Oberststurmfuhrer Paula Anderson!!

    Professor Sam Waite

    Reply
  • B

    BryanMar 7, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    As a former police officer I agree with the comments of SanAntonioSpectator. I also believe that the schools should be held civilly liable for the ostracization and mistreatment of students and professors whose rights are violated by the professors and/or schools themselves simply for their political beliefs.
    In the officer’s place, I probably (in the interest of professionalism) would have spoken to the kid to see if I felt there was some threat or rampantly insane look about the kid.. You know, the Renfield sort of thing. But other than that, I would have told the professor she was being “overly cautious”(one must be polite to the idiots when one is a cop). This is, as I have heard so much, a conspiracy of the liberal side to corrupt the minds of our children from a very young age. It is sad and conservatives need to take back the schools and begin to teach what is important. I am the father of a 16-year old son and I had to explain to him and his friends what the Cold War was… they had no idea, though they have all had at least two high school history classes.

    Reply
  • E

    eleniMar 7, 2009 at 6:49 am

    Roger R – I hope you are not serious and do not actually believe that your daughter is unsafe because some students on campus have gone through LEGAL training to have a CCW permit. I think the statistical fact is that she is much more likely to be raped and murdered by some criminal idiot with a knife. Where did your brain go when you came to your illogical conclusion?

    Reply
  • D

    DaveMar 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • D

    Dave RobertsonMar 6, 2009 at 11:58 am

    “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.

    Reply
  • T

    TooncesMar 6, 2009 at 8:18 am

    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.

    Reply
  • S

    SR in FLMar 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    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*

    Reply
  • T

    TracyMar 5, 2009 at 11:26 am

    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.

    Reply
  • R

    Radar in VAMar 5, 2009 at 9:54 am

    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

    Reply
  • F

    FatWhiteManMar 5, 2009 at 9:34 am

    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.

    Reply
  • Z

    ZeitgeistMar 5, 2009 at 8:57 am

    “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…..

    Reply
  • J

    Jerry in DetroitMar 5, 2009 at 7:24 am

    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.

    Reply
  • R

    RogerRMar 5, 2009 at 6:53 am

    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.

    Reply
  • M

    Mike AppletonMar 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • F

    freedomloverMar 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    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?

    Reply
  • J

    John CheekMar 4, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    “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.

    Reply
  • S

    steve p.Mar 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • N

    Nathan PlantMar 4, 2009 at 11:47 am

    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.

    Reply
  • C

    cgreenMar 3, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • 2

    209Mar 3, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • 2

    209Mar 3, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • R

    RyanMar 3, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    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…

    Reply
  • H

    Herbert HeckMar 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    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!

    Reply
  • B

    BobMar 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • A

    A. RockMar 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    And so it begins…

    Reply
  • T

    TracyMar 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • T

    TexasFatsMar 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • C

    CCHinstructorMidwestMar 3, 2009 at 10:13 am

    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.

    Reply
  • A

    AndreaMar 3, 2009 at 9:53 am

    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.

    Reply
  • E

    Eric KranzMar 3, 2009 at 7:39 am

    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.

    Reply
  • D

    DavidMar 3, 2009 at 6:47 am

    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.

    Reply
  • T

    TakekazeMar 3, 2009 at 3:56 am

    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.

    Reply
  • D

    DCortezMar 2, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    She better not go to Texas!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67FmVRjYs

    Reply
  • S

    SmeadMar 2, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • T

    TimMar 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    WOW, As an educator myself, I ENCOURAGED my students to discuss the 2nd Amendment and the topic of concealed carry on campus.

    Reply
  • A

    AthanMar 2, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Man… I don’t even recognize this country anymore. This country is really turning into Nazi Germany.

    Reply
  • J

    JenniferMar 2, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    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!

    Reply
  • J

    JoeMar 2, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • R

    Robin HoodMar 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    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

    Reply
  • C

    Cameron ReddyMar 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    This is unconscionable. The professor should be fired AND given the Left’s favorite corrective treatment: sensitivity training!

    Reply
  • T

    Tom from OhioMar 2, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    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”.

    Reply
  • R

    Robin HoodMar 2, 2009 at 11:34 am

    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

    Reply
  • D

    David A. JaredMar 2, 2009 at 11:20 am

    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?

    Reply
  • D

    DEGMar 2, 2009 at 11:09 am

    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.

    Reply
  • C

    Common SenseMar 2, 2009 at 11:08 am

    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”.

    Reply
  • G

    GlennMar 2, 2009 at 10:55 am

    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.

    Reply
  • T

    ToddMar 2, 2009 at 10:27 am

    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.

    Reply
  • M

    Michael Z. WilliamsonMar 2, 2009 at 10:09 am

    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.

    Reply
  • M

    MikeMar 2, 2009 at 9:45 am

    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.

    Reply
  • R

    Ron LarimerMar 2, 2009 at 8:25 am

    I don’t know if the actions of Police or the Professor are more ridiculous.

    Reply
  • S

    SanAntonioSpectatorMar 2, 2009 at 7:15 am

    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…”

    Reply
  • R

    Robin HoodMar 2, 2009 at 6:50 am

    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” ; )

    Reply
  • E

    E SloanMar 2, 2009 at 5:56 am

    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.

    Reply
  • J

    John WMar 1, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    Just wanted to say, that YES, the CCSU police have access to gun registration databases. This information is held public safety commissioner as well as within an electronic database.

    The CCSU police are also STATE TROOPERS, with full rights to that information.

    Reply
  • G

    G. MeinertMar 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    I have a CCW permit to carry in 42 states and I’ve never met a police officer who wasn’t appreciative of my efforts. Remember these words of wisdom….

    1) When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

    2) I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy.

    3) When asked why I shot the attacker ten times, I responded “because I ran out of bullets”

    4) A gun without bullets is a club.

    Be well and be safe …………………. Gary

    Reply
  • G

    ghMar 1, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    I wonder if a muslim was speaking and spoke of things that made some people uncomfortable, would she have reported them to the police?

    Reply
  • M

    Mr. B.Mar 1, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Our country is in deep trouble when fascist minded authorities create a chilling effect on straightforward political speech. Keep speaking out, students at CCSU. Make it clear that it is Paula Anderson and her stooge police force that are the true threat to you.

    Reply
  • C

    ChrisMar 1, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    This is horrible, and legal actions should be taken. I am making a similar presentation in my Comm 101 class tomorrow and I will now request no one call the cops.

    Reply
  • M

    Mark HazzardMar 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Mr. Jack Burton

    You speak of the constitution having internal protections, yet you then say I have no right to peacably assemble because I own firearms. You go on further to say the army should force me to feed and house federal troops. Have you never heard of the third amendmant? or does the constitution only apply to you and your ilk? I say truly it is not I but rather you who is a domestic enemy of the United States of America.

    Reply
  • P

    PBServiceMar 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Does anyone else see the irony, So much for the basics of Communication 140 class

    Reply
  • P

    PBServiceMar 1, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Also I think a review of CCSU Police procedures is in order. Why isn’t a little more light
    being directed toward the way Mr Walberg was interrogated?

    Reply
  • A

    ArchieMar 1, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    I think Mr. Wahlberg needs to sue Professor Anderson for intentional infliction of emotional distress, official oppression, and violation of his civil right to free expression under the First Amendment. I think he also needs to file a criminal complaint for official oppression and violation of his civil rights by Professor Anderson.

    Reply
  • R

    RJT1Mar 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    What happened to free speech! Germany collected all the guns from citizens, shortly before they executed millions of Jews! What criminals fear most is confronting an armed homeowner, so the fact that many people own guns may make you safer in your own home. I know from first hand experience that the police almost never prevent crimes but unfortunately usually show up to deal with the aftermath. Maybe some would prefer being assaulted or raped, but I can assure you that I would rather have the means to defend myself. I have a feeling that gun confiscation in this country would not be possible. I certainly would not want to be a cop going around door to door and trying to collect them. The fact is that we have a strong heritage of firearms ownership written into our constitution. This is for both hunting and the defense of liberty.

    Reply
  • P

    PBServiceMar 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    This is a bit old but informative.

    A Little Gun History Lesson
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ——————————
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    —————————
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    ——————————
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    —————————-
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964.. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ——————————
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    ——————————
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    —————————–
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    ——————————

    It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

    Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

    It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

    While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

    There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

    With Guns………….We Are ‘Citizens’.
    Without Them……..We Are ‘Subjects’..

    During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

    Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

    It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

    Reply
  • S

    SickoMar 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    The student should of filed suit against the university, professor, and the cop shop. The student also should not have responded to the cop request to visit their shop, big no no, they just wanted to harass this poor kid.

    Reply
  • J

    Jonsy BiggsMar 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    This “professor” should be required to attend sensitivity training on the issue of First Amendment rights.

    Afterwards… she should be fired.

    Reply
  • R

    radioburningMar 1, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    This is one of the most retarded things I’ve ever heard. This woman should be fired.

    Reply
  • P

    PJNevadaMar 1, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Nothing like Gestapo tactics to silence dissenting opinion. So much for the left’s beloved Berkley Free Speech Movement.

    Reply
  • M

    Mike StollenwerkMar 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • L

    Laris ArdenMar 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    I should have added the following to my statement: Dr. Anderson’s attitude makes me feel uncomfortable.
    I think I will file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, the State Board of Governors for the University System and the Accreditation Office of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
    I no longer feel I can be treated fairly in this school.

    Reply
  • D

    DJMar 1, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    MODERATOR, I got the name of the movie a wrong few minutes ago, please replace with this post. Thank you.

    I tried to let you all know that this is not an isolated incident by directing you to the documentary movie Indoctrinate-U (I have no connection). I posted the links but my comment was deleted. It’s been showing on the Documentary Channel. The trailer and unused clips just scratch what is going on in the universities, the movie shows much more. The web address is what you think it would be.

    Reply
  • R

    Robin HoodMar 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    This “Professor” is clearly misguided I would like to point a few things out to her, if, she reads these comments, which I hope, seeing as her actions have done some damage.

    Answering these questions may help you.

    Paula Anderson, what made you think you need to file a complaint??

    What will you do if a deranged student or person comes into your class with a gun or any other weapon??

    call the Campus Police or 911??

    How?? you may not be able to, in the real world you cannot call “time out” to psychopaths and ask if you can make a call

    how long will it take for help to arrive??

    5, 10, 15 minutes?? 10 at least on average

    how much carnage could such a nut peform in 10 minutes??

    you are probably in the mix of people who feel is all is well in your little “candy land” and all you ever have to do is call a cop and all will be magically well

    that is not reality, look at events around the world, psychos come, they kill, and seldom do they get caught on the scene and are never stopped from commiting these heinous offenses

    no my dear Ms. Anderson, you could learn a thing or two from your students

    being alone with a psycho who has gun that can fire every second or more means you have to act or die

    look at the little girl in Middletown who was stabbed to death on the sidewalk on Main st by a psycho from CVH, if someone there had a gun she may have lived

    Virginia tech too,, can you imagine, you’re hunkered down, behind a chair, praying for help, but it is 10 minutes away and he is above you

    better to have a gun and not need it than to wish you had it

    I am a law abiding citizen with a Ct State permit to carry and I have never had to pull my gun and hope I never do, but I will not be a victim, and if I can save someone’s life, maybe even you or yours, I will.

    I will then have to take the consequences, because you see Ms Anderson, once I fire my weapon and save you, you go home, I GET INVESTIGATED AND I GET SUED.

    At the least if cleared by the police the family of the psychopath will most assuredly sue me, they will argue that if I had not fired and allowed them to kill more people till the cops came, they would have been able to get the help he needed.

    I have several friends who are cops or troopers and they will tell you they can’t be there, it pains them but they do not have the ability to be everywhere.

    All they can do is draw a chalk line around your body and start an investigation.

    I think you should apologize to your student for over reacting and release a statement to the same, if you ego will let you.

    Reply
  • L

    Laris ArdenMar 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    I am a grad student. I am a combat veteran with more than 10 years
    military service protecting this country. I am also a former police officer.
    Whether I am on campus or not I carry a concealed weapon. The college
    has no duty to protect me personally nor do the campus police, local police,
    state police, FBI, DEA, ATFE..etc. No one knows that I carry a concealed firearm.
    I fully understand the implications if I have to use my firearm to protect
    myself or other vicitms. However I choose to make the choice as to
    whether or not I should carry for my protection or to play the role of potential
    victim in this Designated-Victim-Zone. People have experienced violent acts on
    and near this campus. The area communities have crimes, very violent gangs,
    illegal drug dealing, knifings, muggings, rapes, assaults and, yes, shootings.

    England and Austrailia, with their vaunted gun-free societies, have higher rates of
    personal crime from the time they imposed gun confiscation especially in the category of
    home invasions. It is illegal to defend oneself in England, A victim in England must
    retreat. RETREAT? HELL, NO, not me! I would rather
    be judged by twelve in a court rather than be carried by six to my grave!

    To the protesting professor: If you should become a victim of a crime who would
    you want to come to your aid, a person like me or some simpering liberal
    who would stand there and fret?

    BTW I am female and I did not use my real name because the administration would
    seek me out for possible disciplnary action. Now that would be a real Constitutional
    issue for the courts! Oh, yes, I would fight for my rights and I don’t think I would be alone
    in that battle! My Second Amendment Sisters would stand by me!

    Reply
  • D

    DJMar 1, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    I tried to let you all know that this is not an isolated incident by directing you to the documentary movie Document-U (I have no connection). I posted the links but my comment was deleted. It’s been showing on the Documentary Channel. The trailer and unused clips just scratch what is going on in the universities, the movie shows much more. The web address is what you think it would be.

    Reply
  • T

    TomMar 1, 2009 at 11:42 am

    For those of you who aren’t sufficiently educated on the facts, here they are:

    1. It isn’t a crime to make a statement about guns, or to make people feel uncomfortable. The police should never have been involved as a result and exercised extreme poor judgment pursuing this matter.

    2. The correct response to the detective would be to have never responded. If he had subsequently shown up at the student’s door, the student should have simply said “lawyer” and that would’ve been it.

    3. The student should contact a civil lawyer to explore a lawsuit against the professor and the police, as well as file a formal complaint against the detective.

    4. Criminals will acquire weapons no matter how many bans or regulations you put on society. That’s why they’re called criminals – they purposely circumvent the law. The only things citizens can do are to defend themselves and vote in people who will catch the real perpetrators of crime.

    5. If one thinks they feel uncomfortable with an idea of guns, they should try to imagine how they’d feel when they’re assaulted or robbed or raped without recourse with the police “just a phone call away”. They should walk through an entire scenario step-by-step to see how they’d feel about not being able to defend themselves.

    6. Universities are fiefdoms. They will destroy a student’s academic career in a heartbeat if they feel it doesn’t fit the paradigm of their fiefdom. Complaints directly at the professor without the threat of significant legal representation or civil liability can backfire or cause retribution among other faculty members.

    Reply
  • H

    Hermano PescaditoMar 1, 2009 at 11:35 am

    I would love to submit a response, but I am afraid to, since it might not be “politically correct”…

    Reply
  • D

    Dave RobertsonMar 1, 2009 at 10:53 am

    Jim Rau:

    I think you missed the point. In the first paragraph, I was quoting someone else and responding in favor of Mr. Wahlberg. I am a gun owner, and I come from a family of gun owners, most of whom have served in the military and/or law enforcement. I hold multiple permits, including a CT pistol permit, and I am a member of a number of gun rights advocacy groups. I am fully in support of Mr. Wahlberg and the idea of allowing guns on campus.

    Based on the comments following my first post, I am led to believe that I responded to sarcasm, but I found no evidence to support that her comment was anything other than her true feelings.

    Reply
  • B

    Bill RMar 1, 2009 at 10:37 am

    This is so ridiculous. The second amendment helps keep the first amendment in place. If I were him I would not have answered any questions from the cops that night without a lawyer present. Where I keep my guns is nobody’s business. If they put as much time in searching for criminals as they do harassing law-abiding citizens, there would be less crime. How do colleges get away with abridging peoples’ rights this way? Why is it tolerated?

    Reply
  • M

    MRMar 1, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Posted by RSmith:
    ~”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.”

    In my many years, I have not been taught the same things as you, MrRSmith, because I cannot see how a legal gun owner, doing a presentation regarding safe concealed carry for law abiding citizens as a form of defense, “clearly fits the mold of (an) Al Queda sleeper school shooting operative.” I do have to applaud your terror inspiring description- you must be a creative writing student. However, at no stretch of the imagination does Mr. Wahlberg fit that description. If you were to exercise a little intellectual honesty, you would admit your errors there. I was also not aware that presenting a topic which was not a liberally popular ideal, was ‘instigation of a classroom.’ I do have to ask though…. “instigating” them to what, exactly?

    I was also not aware that college campuses were considered “children.” Well, as you are a ‘child,’ you may not understand this concept… there is this little thing here in America that we like to call the Constitution. It happens to the ONLY reason you live in a free country and enjoy the freedoms you do. The reason you DO enjoy those freedoms is because men bigger and braver than you, were willing to take up arms and EARN that freedom. Just because another American citizen wants to exercise his freedom in an entirely legal way different from what you think he should, does not give you the right to imprison him. That’s just not how this country works. However, if that’s what you truly believe should happen, there are several countries in this world which would better suit your needs.

    ~”They did a fine job at Virginia Tech-look how many victims there could have been had it not been for the police.”

    I’d like to mention the little fact that the victims and murderer at Virginia Tech were all dead long before the police even made it to him. The police at Virginia Tech were merely there to clean up the mess, and do an investigation AFTER the fact. If that’s your idea of ‘protection,’ then it’s very different from a rational person’s ideal.

    ~”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.”

    Ah, Utopia. Perhaps someday we’ll all live in a world with no crime, no hatred, no disagreements…… However, until that time many of us would rather live in a world of freedom, where we are able to make our own choices- free to speak about ideals which may not be ‘politically correct,’ and free to protect ourselves from danger, free of enslavement.

    Reply
  • M

    MRMar 1, 2009 at 9:38 am

    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.”

    Really? Promoting a citizen’s right to the Second Amendment (which was also very recently upheld by the USSC in Heller v DC) is a prisonable offense? Are all gun owners murderers? You’re equating legal gun ownership with murder. Do you have any idea how ignorant you truly are?

    I’m a woman- a wife, mother, and professional. I own several firearms, and I’ve never killed a soul. Nor do I plan to- unless of course some criminal threatens my life or the lives of my children. I enjoy shooting as a sport (as do many Olympians, btw), and I carry concealed everyday as a means of defense. You may feel comfortable being in a position where your only means of ‘defense’ is calling 911 and praying that the police get there in time to help you, rather than just cleaning up your remains. As for me and mine, we will have a fighting chance against those criminals who will ALWAYS be present in this world.

    Do yourself a favor, Susie. I realize you’re young, so there may be a chance for you to turn your ignorant stance around. Re-read what you posted again, and see if you can reconcile that with a belief in the freedom of speech. Keep in mind that without the Second Amendment, there is NO guarantee of the First. Consider that what you just posted said that you believe in freedom of speech, but only if it fits YOUR agenda or preconceived notions about what firearms are. Research the fact that the vast majority of murders are committed WITHOUT any firearm involvement. And then ponder this: murders are committed by MURDERERS, not inanimate objects. Behind every murder is a criminal…. a criminal who has infinite tools at his disposal.

    Think rationally. Break free of your indoctrination.

    Reply
  • A

    AndyCMar 1, 2009 at 9:32 am

    From Lester: “Hey, Andy. I think you missed out on the sarcasm in Jane’s comment. Her last line gave it away. About things going so well in England since guns were taken out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Ummmm, at least I hope she was kidding. Maybe not, since she claims to be a student on this campus full of left-wing propoganda.”

    Lester, if Jane (or anyone else) was being sarcastic , I’m guilty as charged – I totally missed the mark if that’s the case, and I have no problem admitting it :))

    On a slightly different note, I also have to admit that I do enjoy pointing out Massad Ayoob’s truism:

    “Sadly, being helpless themselves, sheep tend to instinctively fear anything with canine teeth. Many of them cannot distinguish between the wolf and the sheepdog, and thus fear them both equally.”

    I believe that most of us don’t seek praise or thanks for being a sheepdog; we don’t even want or need acknowledgment. What I *do* want is to be left alone to enjoy my legal hobby in peace and not be attacked/accused/judged by the ignorant for pursuing it.

    Reply
  • W

    Wallace PaulMar 1, 2009 at 9:21 am

    It sounds like the next presentation on a “relevant issue in the media” should be “Free Speach in our University System”. Clearly Ms Anderson has problems. If in fact she has the support of her Department Chair and Dean, then CCSU also has problems.

    Reply
  • K

    Kris PalmerMar 1, 2009 at 9:14 am

    I commend Mr Walberg and his cohorts for exercising their freedom of speech. It is those who do these that invigorates the rest of us. It is those like him who dare to make a statement about what they feel and stand up for. Soon we will tire of what is going on, and inspired action will follow.

    Reply
  • T

    Timmy MacMar 1, 2009 at 9:05 am

    I don’t own a gun and probably never will, but I’m still flabbergasted that the police were called because the presentation made students “uncomfortable.” I kind of thought the whole point of higher education is to be exposed to new ideas, some of which will probably make you uncomfortable.

    The kid makes a controversial statement, the class discusses, ideas are exchanged, views are challenged. Isn’t that how education is supposed to work?

    Reply
  • A

    Arch StantonMar 1, 2009 at 8:25 am

    I have read of several cases like this, where an anti-gun person antagonizes a pro-gun person supposedly out fear. If the anti-gunner truly fears firearms, he or she would flee or at least avoid confrontation. The professor’s action proves she doesn’t fear firearms, but was motivated to cynically attack one whom she regarded as a political enemy.

    Reply
  • F

    FatWhiteManMar 1, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Mike, I do indeed understand what happened here and I do understand the role of the police. The role of the police is to be the second responders to a criminal act and to investigate an alleged crime.

    The police do not have to investigate every call they receive if on the surface there does not seem to be a crime involved. For instance, just recently in my local area, the police received a call that there was a man with a gun at a local store. Instead of rushing police to the scene for no reason they asked the caller a couple of questions: Is he waving the gun around? Has he threatened anyone? The caller’ said that “no, he just has it in a holster and he is picking out some meat at the beef counter”. Of course the police response then was, then he isn’t breaking any laws, good day ma’am. They didn’t send a score of police cars or call in SWAT for an inappropriate response and they did not call the man in to be grilled and questioned as to how many guns he had or where he kept them.

    In the case of the college professor, the police instead responded by harassing and attempting to intimidate the student when no obvious crime was committed. Now, if the police were instead acting on misinformation, then I apologize. If the professor had said reported something nonfactual and that caused the police to respond the way they did, then of course they should have investigated.

    Clearly this student has been wronged. Either by the professor, the police or both. If the police responded the way that they did simply because because a professor did not like what a student had to say, then I stand by my statement that they are just being fascist strong-arms of the university. If the police acted appropriately, it is only because they were acting on bad information that the student was committing a crime. If that is the case, then the university professor should be charged with filing a false report.

    Reply
  • M

    mike59Mar 1, 2009 at 7:43 am

    this doesn’t surprise me – universities in america are not as free as people think when it comes to dissenting ideas

    not at all

    Reply
  • P

    peter kuckMar 1, 2009 at 7:21 am

    How did the Campus Police get a list of the students firearms? Who called the Connecticut State Police for the list, and why did they call the Connecticut State Police for the list of firearms?

    Did Prof. Anderson attempt to get an “at risk warrant” issued for a student due to the students use of his first amendment rights during a classroom discussion without any threats on his part?

    What was the advice of “[her] Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials” Do the department Chair, the Dean, and “the relevant University officials” offer any explanation as to why CCSU does not belong to the “free Speach zone” called the United States or why they are attempting to enforce non-existant law through intimidation tactics?

    Did professor Anderson file a false police report?

    All questions that need to be answered.

    There is something wrong with Professor Anderson and the University administration that needs to be corrected.

    Reply
  • M

    MarkFeb 28, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    Sparky McDougall

    Just because the police want to talk to you does not mean that you have to talk to them.

    If they want you let them jump through the hoops, getting an arrest warrant supported by Oath or affirmation as its supposed to be done not through intimidation.

    SCOTUS Affirmed the RTKBA in Heller. That should end it right there.

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    What about Shall not be infringed do they not understand.

    Reply
  • S

    SarahFeb 28, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    I’m completely amazed. The professor clearly went into panic mode as soon as she heard the word gun. It seems that people have completely forgotton that guns are inanimate objects. There is so much in this world that is blamed on the inanimate object, rather than the person behind it. That’s like saying that everyone that has ever driven a car is potentially evil, because there are people out there that have killed others with a car. Guess what, its the person, not the object. I am a 28 year old female, I obtained my Concealed Carry permit after college, but I wished I’d had it then. Many nights I had to walk home in the dark alone from class. Calling campus security to escort you was a joke. At the first college I went to, a small private liberal arts school, we had 3 security officers, one that was about 70 years old, one that was about 70 lbs overweight and one that was just stupid. I could’ve outrun all three. After a rash of peeping toms and sex offenders showing up on campus, I bought a stun gun. At the university I graduated from, the enrollment was over 30,000. Calling security meant a solid 5-10 minute wait if not longer, especially if you just wanted an escort across campus. I also lived close enough to campus that I could not legally keep a gun in my home, which still boggles my mind. I was followed home more than once, had many strange people knock on my door and a girl was raped a block away from me on her morning (daylight) jog. I now have my CCW and can carry whenever I feel the need to. I don’t carry everywhere or all the time, but I do feel relieved knowing that I can. I also know that people that take the time to get their CCW are some of the most law-abiding people you can find (criminals would not sit through the two (fairly boring) 4 hour long videos that you have to watch), and then spend the afternoon learning about gun laws and gun safety. I feel safer knowing that everytime I go out, there is potentially a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Criminals don’t care about CCW’s. Law-abiding citizens do.

    Reply
  • M

    MikeFeb 28, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Fatwhiteman I don’t think you really understand what went on or do not want to.

    “This is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of. Isn’t there a minimum intelligence requirement to be a professor? With her unwarranted hysteria, combined with her lack of understanding of history, current events or the U.S. Constitution, I would say her I.Q. is somewhere between a rock and a wet fart.”

    The professor was not stupid or in a state of hysteria. She just disagrees with the united states having a liberal firearm policy and wants a restrictive one. The professor so strongly belivies in The State. That when someone disagreed so well with her own point of view. She decided to use the power of the university to harass one of her students.

    “And then there are the police. What kind of fascist nuts do you let wear a badge in Connecticut?”

    You must be a troll or very dim witted. What exactly do you believe a police officers job is? A police officer is not a judge or district attorney.

    Reply
  • J

    JimFeb 28, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Anderson should be arrested and thrown in jail for life for violating the First Amendment.

    Reply
  • B

    bill 3542Feb 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    this article shows the true face of liberal/socialist professor and the cesspools that higher education has become today, whe have become a nation of bleating spinless sheep who wait on kind comrade obama’s hand outs.
    true education does not matter, political correctness is all that counts.

    Reply
  • M

    Mike CooperFeb 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    According to the SCOTUS ruling on this matter, the police do not have a duty to protect you. Therefore, we have the right to protect ourselves, by any means necessary, against a threat.

    The police are there to investigate crimes after they happen. Guns are a necessary part of our society for protection. The founding fathers knew this. They also knew that to protect us from government, guns were necessary. As it is said, the Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
    It is also clear that this was an incredibly important amendment; being at the top of the list and the FACT that the federalists and anti-federalists argued for days on who would get credit for creating this amendment.

    If they accept any federal funding, it should be mandatory to allow CCW’s on campus.

    Remember, “gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.”

    Thanks

    Reply
  • R

    Retired AcademicFeb 28, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    So this is what universities, university lecturers, and university admininstrations have become. How
    shameful.

    Reply
  • F

    FatWhiteManFeb 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    This is one of the silliest things I have ever heard of. Isn’t there a minimum intelligence requirement to be a professor? With her unwarranted hysteria, combined with her lack of understanding of history, current events or the U.S. Constitution, I would say her I.Q. is somewhere between a rock and a wet fart.

    And then there are the police. What kind of fascist nuts do you let wear a badge in Connecticut? Their response should have been something along the lines of telling the teacher that saying the word “gun” is not a real crime and that she should just go take a Midol or something. Instead they look up the student’s registered firearms and proceed to grill him like he were a real criminal.

    I think the real issue to this whole story that is not being discussed is registration. Ideally, the police should not have any registrations to riffle through. If this had been me, not only would the local Sheriff probably had just told the idiot professor to shut the hell up and stop being so stupid, he would also not have any firearms registration to look up.

    Honestly, I can’t tell you how many guns I own because every time I think I have them counted, I find another. But one thing I can tell you for certain is that the state doesn’t know how many I have either because at least we do not have some silly registration scheme.

    Reply
  • B

    B.K.Feb 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    While I absolutely feel for the students victimized in not only the Virginia Tech shooting, and others, I’m frankly disgusted that a supposed “educator” and moulder of developing minds would commit such a huge blunder.
    There was, I’d remind you no firearn there, just words and a dissenting opinion that followed the topic of the presentation, as given.

    Words are protected (or used to be) under the constitution of the country. As were dissenting opinions.

    Had I given this presentatikon, under the same instructions I would be fi\ling a civil rights violation complaint against the instructor, and the institution.

    I assume that at least the right to file a complaint legally is still valid? Or is the massive excess of non- reasoning PC extended to remove that legal option also.

    Although not currently in favour I can think of several massacres that would have been minimized, or prevented by a law abiding firearms owner. Perhaps the students that were “traumatized” just by the spoken word, would have been far less so if the situation they found themselves in were resolved before they were injured or killed because of the ability to defend themselves.

    Again a dissenting opinion, but one worth thinking about if innocent lives could have been protected by stopping the mass murderers commiting the crimes.

    Reply
  • J

    jack burtonFeb 28, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    The Professor was entirely correct in her decision.

    Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, and shooting ranges means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

    Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members and seizing their guns will go a long way towards reducing crime.

    If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norweigans to help rummage through people’s property.

    People who don’t like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.

    Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and no person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

    No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

    If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

    Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

    Long live our Constitution!

    Reply
  • J

    JohnFeb 28, 2009 at 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.

    I take some comfort in the observation that most commenters have not taken such a reactionary stance. However, it still worries me greatly that anyone could fail to see the lack of logic in the statement that “I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.” The individuals who have made this and similar comments really need to take a critical look at their own world view. Hopefully, they will emerge more open-minded and reasonable.

    Reply
  • S

    Sparky McDougallFeb 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Heaven forbid the student might have instead selected a topic on sexual battery or alcohol abuse on a college campus! Goodness, he would have actually brought the necessary instruments to class that could be used in a sexual assault.

    Some friendly advice…(stolen shamelessly from somewhere on the web)

    I was recently contacted by the Police.
    They want me to come in to the precinct to talk to them. What should I do?

    So you got home from work today and there’s a Detective’s business card under your door. You call the number on the card. He tells you he’d like you to come in and talk to him. What should you do?

    Call your lawyer, that’s what.

    When the police want to chat, you most likely won’t be coming home from the precinct that day. You are going to be arrested.

    No, you can’t talk them out of it. The police have already made their decision.

    No, they won’t listen to your side of the story and change their minds. The other side already convinced them to arrest you.

    No, they don’t care that you would never do something like that. That you have a good job. That you’re college educated. That you support your elderly parents, your five kids and your wife.

    The police don’t care that you’re a really nice guy.

    They don’t even care that you weren’t even there.

    So what do you do when the police want to talk to you? Call your lawyer first.

    But don’t take my word for it. Call that Detective with the business card and ask him what’s going on. He’ll tell you something like this: “We need to straighten this out.” “I need to hear your side of the story.” “I need to see you in person.”

    Here’s what he won’t say: “You’re going to be arrested for a major felony.” “Pack your toothbrush.” “You won’t be going home for a while.”

    Why? Because then you wouldn’t go see him, would you? Then he would have to come looking for you, which is a lot harder.

    Call your lawyer.

    No one is suggesting you should run from the police. That only causes more problems. But you cannot walk into that police precinct by yourself. If you go in with a friend or family member, the police will make them wait in the lobby for you. A few hours later, the officer at the front desk will tell your friend or family member that they can see you in court the next morning. Or at visiting hour at the jail after that.

    So who should you call when the police are looking for you? Your lawyer.

    And who should go with you to see the police? Your lawyer.

    Why? Because your lawyer can call the Detective and find out what’s going on. The police will usually talk to us. We can find out if they are planning to arrest you or if you really are just a witness. We can find out if they really want to “hear your side of the story” or if that was just a lame ruse to get you to turn yourself in.

    Your lawyer can sit with you and the police when you’re being interviewed. Your lawyer can tell you what questions to answer and what questions not to answer (in other words, when to shut up).

    Realize this: If you’re not the victim of a crime, the police are not here to help you. And the law says that they can lie to you. As much as they want. If it gets you to confess. So, if you’re not the victim of a crime, if the police ask you to come in to chat, you can’t trust a thing they say.

    The police are very good at using what you say against you. By instinct, most people want to please the police when they talk to them, which often makes them say things they think the police want to hear. Sometimes, those things aren’t exactly true. But they become part of your statement, and your statement can–and will–be used against you. That can’t happen if you have a lawyer with you. The police can’t get a confession from you if they can’t get you to say what they want to hear.

    NO, bringing a lawyer with you to see the police does not make you look more guilty. And who cares if it does? They were planning to arrest you anyway. Bringing a lawyer with you may be the only way you are going to go home tonight.

    If you were wrong, if you really were just a witness, then consider it an insurance policy.

    And if you do get arrested, the police and prosecutors have a lot less to work with down the line when it comes to proving you guilty in court.

    So don’t call that Detective first. Call your lawyer.

    Reply
  • J

    Jim RauFeb 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    I am a retired police officer and I got a real laugh at David Robersons response. He obviously is not living in the world with the rest of us. I as a police officer I am VERY relieved when citizens except the responsibility to be armed and defend themselves and others, even the clueless ones like Mr. Roberson who are so out of touch with reality.
    An armed society is a safe society!!

    Reply
  • N

    NewBritainGunOwnerFeb 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    I live just up the road from CCSU, and I am not only shocked that this happened but disgusted with the attitudes of people who support the actions of this professor. As usual, when gun-grabbers have nothing to contribute to the discussion they instead begin with the name-calling.

    And I’m hoping that ‘Jane’ is just being sarcastic. If you truly mean what you say, I feel sorry for you.

    Folks like ‘AndyC’, ‘Drew’, and ‘DavidGross’ are right-on-the-money. The police have no duty to protect you, and I have yet to see someone who’s gone through a carry-permit process turn into a raging, homicidal killer just because they walked on to a college campus.

    Oh, and to any of you vermin that advocate gun bans and/or confiscation I have a warning: try to take my weapons and I will deal with you quickly and harshly.

    mg

    Reply
  • L

    LesterFeb 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    Hey, Andy. I think you missed out on the sarcasm in Jane’s comment. Her last line gave it away. About things going so well in England since guns were taken out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Ummmm, at least I hope she was kidding. Maybe not, since she claims to be a student on this campus full of left-wing propoganda.

    Reply
  • M

    Matt CohenFeb 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    Susie should be put in prison for promoting the restriction of a mans constitutional rights.

    Reply
  • E

    English MikeFeb 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    ” Susie
    February 27, 2009 • 7:04 pm

    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.”

    So Susie; you advocate the imprisonment of someone who voices an opinion which causes you concern.
    That’s hardly what one might call democratic or reasonable now, is it?
    You most certainly are NOT in favour of free speech, as by definition, applying a qualification removes that freedom.

    How would YOU feel if you expressed an opinion that the termination of a pregnancy brought about by rape was OK & found yourself imprisoned because others said it was murder?

    When you make the statement that promoting the carriage of firearms for self defence advocates murder, you show irrationality of the highest order, or do you consider that Police officers should also be disarmed?

    I suggest both yourself & the “professor” spend a little time researching the DEFENSIVE use of firearms in the US prior to making any future statements on the subject.
    Even the most biased research shows that guns save lives.
    I’m sure you will also be dismayed to know that more women than men who own firearms do so for the purpose of self defence: 67% to 46%

    Reply
  • A

    AndyCFeb 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    From R. Smith: “This man deserves to be put into prison for his instigation of a classroom directly after school shootings occured.”

    He instigated a classroom? What exactly does this mean and why should it mean prison-time?

    From R. Smith: “I applaud the teacher for contacting the police as this man clearly fits the mold of Al Queda sleeper school shooting operative.”

    I’m saddened to have to inform you that you’re both ignorant as well as hysterical – get an education, a Valium and a grip – in that order.

    From R. Smith: “Gun rights groups are clearly outdated models based on past failures of social policy meant to protect the people.”

    Newsflash: The people have always been meant to protect themselves – and still are. Even today, the police have zero legal obligation to come to any person’s assistance – see Castle Rock v. Gonzalez as well as Warren v. District of Columbia. You can keep any social policies designed to “protect me”.

    From R. Smith: “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.”

    We don’t think of ourselves as law-enforcement, but sorry, but we do have legal standing – we have legal concealed-permits issued by the state, for which we had to become trained to state-approved levels, pass an extensive criminal background check, etc. We have proven the nature of our law-abiding character – can you say the same, for example, of all of your colleagues with whom you work?

    Also, how many university students would you describe as children? These are young adults you’re rather insultingly referring to as “children” – and I’m sure that some, like me, are not so young, so let’s drop the fake “It’s for the children” argument – that one ain’t gonna fly here, neighbor.

    From R. Smith: “What if just one child would be shot innocently, taking away his future, because someone wanted to carry on campus.”

    Find me a single instance in the past 50 years where any person with a state-issued concealed-carry permit at any university or college has ever shot an innocent person. Bet you can’t do it.

    From R. Smith: “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.”
    The stakes are graver than you might imagine if that’s how you think – he was using his guaranteed First Amendment rights to discuss the Second Amendment. Yeah, let’s throw in prison those naughty people with whom we disagree, right?

    From R. Smith: “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.”

    Wrong again – look at how many victims died because the police did nothing until the shooting was over.

    From R. Smith: “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.”

    We’d better ban free speech on your planet if it does all that, then, but down here on Earth, in the USA, we’ve actually become rather fond of it. Silly of us, I know.

    From R. Smith: “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.”

    Oh, we’d be delighted to join you ( a gun is darned heavy, you know) – but until the criminals stop considering disarmed people to be anything other than their victims, it ain’t going to happen.

    Reply
  • B

    Bretton WeberFeb 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    This is asinine. I think campuses shouldn’t allow anyone and their grandma to pack heat, but if you’ve gone through the rigorous process and passed the background checks to get a Concealed Carry permit from your sheriff, you ought to be able to exercise that power in school. CCW-holders know the rules and know the liability of doing anything stupid with their firepower – I’d trust the holder of a permit just as much as I would a university police officer.

    Legalize CCW on campuses – mass murders occur where nobody can defend themselves.

    Reply
  • G

    GSFeb 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    To Jane:

    So, Wahlberg is a dangerous criminal because he gave a presentation about an alternate opinion regarding gun control? Get a clue! It’s not a crime to speak about positions that may be contrary to your own personal beliefs, and it’s not a crime to make a group of people “scared and uncomfortable.” The legalities get a little murky when a government agency interrogates a citizen based on their exercise of free speech. This is just another sad example where hysteria and paranoia overcame common sense.

    Reply
  • M

    MNFeb 28, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    To Jane Lowell:

    As an American in Britain, I can assure you that banning guns has created larger problems. Only criminals carry them now, and knife crime is out of control.

    Reply
  • D

    David GrossFeb 28, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Hey, Curtis; here’s a better quote:

    “First they’ll abrogate the Second Amendment; second, they’ll be able ignore the First Amendment.”

    “First the Second; second the First.”

    Reply
  • D

    Dave RobertsonFeb 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    “As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus. We really need to start banning guns in this country, the situation is out of control, Britain banned guns and look at how well they are doing”

    Yeah, Jane, look how well they are doing. Crime has INCREASED, so now they want to tighten the screw further and ban….KNIVES! What a brilliant idea!

    Are you on drugs? The man gave a presentation in a class on a hot topic. He didn’t bring a gun to school. He didn’t threaten anyone. Most importantly, he didn’t break any law. Therefore he is neither “dangerous” nor “criminal”, despite your ridiculous assertion.

    Furthermore, I take offense to your hoplophobic discrimination against gun owners by labeling gun owners as “rednecks”. Who will you rail against next? black people? gays? immigrants? Save your hate speech for your next Klan rally.

    Reply
  • A

    arthurFeb 28, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    The professor should be fired.

    I am interested to know how the keystone cops got a list of this man’s firearms?

    I bet all the people who are siding with the professor are just outraged, I said outraged, about terrorists overseas wiretaps and would never allow the government to see a list of books checked out by someone at the library.

    As usual, on college campuses, the only protected speech is liberal speech. Look within yourselves and see what you are doing to young minds.

    I certainly hope a very large lawsuit is coming.

    Reply
  • M

    MikeFeb 28, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    I would had laughed at the police when they wanted to know where my legally owned firearms were.
    I would have refused to talk to them, because they have nothing on me.

    The teacher was obviously a left-wing nutjob who’s scared of anything that can fire a projectile.

    So you DONT want legally trained citizens to protect the school?
    INSTEAD you’d rather CONTINUE to let school shooters just kill everyone and noone is there to stop them!
    It’s literally a free for all, like shooting dish in a barrel!

    how ignorant can you possibly be!
    The woman should be teaching pre-schoolers, not highschool or college.

    She wanted a speech?She got one…he simply used the 1st ammendment to speak about the 2nd ammendment. I’ve personally sat and witnessed TONS of speeches i didnt like or agree with….but you didnt see ME calling the cops because i felt uncomfortable….

    Maybe this will wake her up and she’ll get a taste of reality for once.

    Gun Free Zones DO NOT WORK….they HAVENT EVER WORKED!
    Because nearly every single school shooting has BEEN in a Gun Free Zone!!!
    You cannot argue the facts!

    More and more colleges ARE allowing concealed carry…because they realize the current preventative measures just ARENT WORKING…PERIOD.

    I’d actually PREFER to have 1 or 2 students in my classroom with a firearm.
    They HAVE to be FULLY TRAINED and LICENSED to operate it….SAME WAY as the police!
    (except police have more tactical training and variety training)
    Not to mention people with CCW MUST pass multiple background checks.

    You give me a college with concealed carry allowed, i would HONESTLY feel safer.

    Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

    Reply
  • S

    SaraFeb 28, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Well, now you know what it is like living in a communist nation where informers drop a dime on you for thought crimes. This thing knew what it was doing. It disagreed with your very legal and level headed position and it misused it’s power to harm a student. Typical of fascists. That is what this is.

    Reply
  • A

    AndyCFeb 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    quote: “As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus.”

    Someone is a “dangerous criminal” merely because they raise the subject of (legal) firearms-ownership? Just… wow. Retake your course in Logic, lady, because you just failed; you’re also prejudiced and guilty of stereotyping because of your association of rednecks with guns, so you can report for Sensitivity training too.

    Oh, you might also want to retake English 101 – it should read “I applaud Paula for her bravery in reporting…” – not “I applaud Paula for her bravery to report”.

    quote: “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.”

    So freedom of speech only applies when people say things with which you agree – otherwise they should be in prison? You fail as well, lady – you need to retake Civics 101 as well as Logic.

    As for the professor – she failed her students. Her actions were beneath contempt, completely destroyed the trust relationship with her students which is vital to teaching/mentoring and has proven herself to be incapable of the open mind which any good teacher worth their salt should aim to achieve and maintain.

    The excuse that she was in some way attempting to protect her students is totally hollow and I don’t believe this for a second. This was a blatant attempt to punish a student whose beliefs do not coincide with hers, and is the worst case of academic cowardice I have seen in many years.

    Reply
  • AnonymousFeb 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Immediate termination of professor Paula Anderson is warranted and justified.

    Reply
  • W

    W.E.G.Feb 28, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Benjamin Franklin was a terrorist.

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin, 1775

    Reply
  • L

    Lawyer DaggettFeb 28, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    What a joke. What a tyrannical place. What a bunch of pant wetting leftists.

    Reply
  • A

    ACFeb 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    The “professor” should be fired.

    Reply
  • K

    K. TysonFeb 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    What the student expressed is on the minds of many people. This professor has made it very clear to her students that rather than defend themselves they have an obligation to submit to death willingly and without protest. The VA school shooting took place AFTER the school was made a “gun free zone.” This was done to “protect” the students. It is unfortunate that criminals do not obey the law.

    Reply
  • D

    DennisFeb 28, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Since it is proper to denounce a person to the Secret, oops Campus Police for speaking in support of the Second Amendment , it would also be proper to denounce someone advocating abortion, and insist they have a physical examination.

    Let’s see how long that policy would last.

    Reply
  • J

    Jane LowellFeb 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    As a student on this campus I applaud Paula for her bravery to report this dangerous criminal to the police. I do not want some redneck carrying around tools designed to take human life on my campus. We really need to start banning guns in this country, the situation is out of control, Britain banned guns and look at how well they are doing.

    Reply
  • R

    RobertFeb 28, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Someone said if John had nothing to worry about he shouldn’t be worried.

    Wrong.

    If John refused to go to the station, I gaurentee you they would show up to his door.

    http://www.pro2a.org

    Reply
  • A

    AlumnusFeb 28, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    It’s simple: if you contribute money to this university, withdraw it until someone gets a copy of the Constitution for each and every faculty member, so that they can better remember why it is that we have the freedoms we do, freedoms that allow professors to sit around and milk money from the rest of the population for bullying their kids. Mr. Wahlberg, you should be getting a lawyer and filing an action over undue stress or anything else you can pile on. This is really, in truth, quite sad. As a former academic, I can assure you that I often went out of my way to hear and consider opposing viewpoints, and anyone suggesting otherwise or using the long arm of government to bully someone into silence should be run right out of a university, because he/she is most certainly not a scholar or thinker of any worth. This makes the university look like a third-rate community college with quibbling passive-aggressives for a faculty.

    Reply
  • C

    CateFeb 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    I don’t personally support Mr. Wahlberg’s ideas, but calling the campus police on him is ridiculous. He should be allowed to express his opinion if he pleases, and the people listening should respect them. Some kids and the teacher felt ‘nervous’. School shootings are an issue, and people need to look for an answer to them, not just ignore it so they feel better.

    Reply
  • C

    ChuckFeb 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Perhaps, someone needs to remind said professor that filing a false or frivolous police complaint is in fact a CRIME.

    Reply
  • C

    CurtisFeb 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Great quote.

    “If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First?”

    Reply
  • A

    AnthonyFeb 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    That professor is such a wuss. Can’t let a student present an opposing point of view that makes sense.

    Reply
  • D

    DrewFeb 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    Harvey: Being that this is text, and not an actual conversation, I can’t tell if you’re displaying extreme sarcasm or if you actually agree with me. I’m assuming the former, but my experiences speak for themselves. I would rather sit in class knowing that three or four of my classmates were armed and capable of defending themselves than sit in class knowing that not a single person in the room has the means to fend off an armed assailant.

    Stephen: The next time you mention having a beer at the corner bar, I hope someone decides to start investigating you for your “inappropriate activities.” I mean, after all, if everyone who ever consumed alcohol was investigated for it, maybe drunk drivers wouldn’t kill so many people on our roads each year… Right?

    Those of you who disagree with firearm ownership should think about this:

    You’re asleep at night and you’re awaken by the sound of glass breaking. You hear two male voices and footsteps. Next to your bed is a cell-phone and a flashlight.

    Can you honestly say that you wouldn’t wish to have a gun?

    If not, again, you obviously don’t have the most basic human instinct of self-preservation and as such, I don’t feel much sympathy for you in the event you are victimized by a violent criminal.

    Reply
  • J

    JasonFeb 28, 2009 at 11:55 am

    If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First?

    Reply
  • J

    JamesFeb 28, 2009 at 11:51 am

    I guess the 1st Amendment only covers those in seats of power, seems to me that some legal action should be started against the communist professor and campus police. Welcome to the USSA citizens.. be ready to produce your papers at every check point. And for all those who aspire to wear the brown shirt of the new socialist regime, there will come a day when history will show you in a very bad light.

    Reply
  • S

    StephenFeb 28, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Frankly, I don’t see what the big stink is. The professor was within her rights to make her concerns known to the administration, and weapon registrations are accessible to police (otherwise, what’s the point?).

    It’s a matter of due diligence. Think: if the Virginia Tech shooter had been checked this way, things might have been different (if he was as unstable as everybody who’d had contact with him claimed he was, that would have been apparent to police). Anyway, if the guy is law-abiding, he’s got nothing to worry about — he even said as much himself: “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.”

    Good for him! Honestly.

    The trouble is, I think he’s trying to make a political issue out of this. It’s a bit disingenuous. Stories like this get inflated into idiotic misrepresentations like “PROFESSOR CALLS COPS AFTER STUDENT GIVES PRESENTATION ON GUN RIGHTS”, which conjures images of SWAT grunts grinding some hapless college skinny’s face into the pavement.

    Come on, people!

    Reply
  • H

    HarveyFeb 28, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Sorry, that was for the brilliant Drew.

    Reply
  • H

    HarveyFeb 28, 2009 at 11:10 am

    It’s great to be told just how little I know of how BRILLIANT your views are. I sit in awe of how much you know.

    Reply
  • W

    william cookFeb 28, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Political correctness is the name of the problem. The fashionabe view of the minute is apparently now enforceable with the local police despite the lack of any laws being broken. Yes, the professor is a PSH, the police are apparently idiots for wasting taxpayer time and money on a non-crime, but every time we bow to the pressure to conform to the PC agenda we become complicit in their idiocy. Stand up, like John Wahlberg and his classmates, voice your opinions calmly, quiety and repeatedly in the face of this group-think censorship. Do what you can to help those around you see that a differing opinion is not a crime. Only when people have the integrity to resist the herd instinct and express their unpopular views will we stop this kind of stupidity.

    Reply
  • D

    David GrossFeb 28, 2009 at 11:08 am

    I think Jim Horan’s idea of a detailed investigation and publication of the actual documentation is a GREAT idea. The article certainly provides probable cause for such deliberate and thorough action, giving Professor Anderson the opportunity to defend her presumptively invalid actions (law, constitution) in a public forum under the very doctrine of freedom of expression and ideas that she appears, on the face of the article, to have violated. We can then see if, and how, she uses the language (facts and meaning of words), the reasonableness of her perceptions, under the circumstances (as reviewed by ordinary, reasonable people), and any applied logic (claimed reasons, subject to reasonable scrutiny by reasoning, reasonable people) under the constitution, laws, and University regulations and policy.

    Concurrently, the University can (and should) conduct a fitness inquiry concerning her conduct as a Professor in the course and scope of her employment.

    This appears to be an issue of “content-based” discrimination under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, at a minimum. A seminal case was Chicago v. Mosely (408 U.S. 92 – 1972) where picketing/disturbance of the schools during class operations was prohibited, with an exception for the school employees’ unions. The concept is much broader than that. In other words, if you don’t like the ideas that you hear, the subject matter of the discussion/debate/dispute, that just “too bad.” The purpose of freedom of expression is to cause debate, dissent, disturbance of complacency, to challenge proposed policies, and/or to foster change from the status quo.

    In the late 80s, the concept became known as “political correctness,” and was used (mostly by the political left, but not exclusively) to shut off debate and discussion of policies, issues, ideas/beliefs that those in “power” didn’t want to change or to allow to be challenged. It was a new set of subject-matter taboos: “You can’t talk about that.”

    They used the buzz-word, “threat” in order to attempt to skirt the First Amendment, because there is an exception in the First Amendment for “ballistic” speech, based on “threat,” concerning words and ideas that are intended to, or recklessly (reasonably perceived by reasonable people) can cause harm. What they ignore (there’s no way they forgot it) is the requirement that the “threat” generally required to be against their person or property AND “real and immediate” and to involve “unlawful action,” on the facts, as reasonably perceived by a reasonable person Ex: Brandenburg v. Ohio, (395 U.S. 444 – 1969); Hess v. Indiana (414 U.S. 105 – 1973). These cases, and the doctrine, grew from an amazing case, Terminello v. Chicago (337 U.S. 1 – 1949), which required that the police act to PROTECT AND TO PRESERVE the right of freedom of expression, not suppress it or terminate it, against an angry mob that was threatening violence against the speaker based on the ideas that he was expressing. Terminello was protesting (literally “on a soap box” on the steps of the federal courthouse, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelley v. Kramer which removed racially restrictive covenants in the sale of land from the ability of all courts in the United States to enforce (“state action” – 14th Amendment). They arrested and removed him “for his own safety” because it was easier than trying to control the mob. It is not disorderly conduct or incitement to riot greatly to disturb people with ideas which challenge their beliefs, ideas, policies, and/or the status quo.

    “For your own good,” “for the children,” “because my beliefs are threatened or challenged” are all unconstitutional reasons for suppressing, or attempting to suppress, ideas for change, or any discussion, for that matter. The answer to speech with which you disagree is more speech: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) – Justice Brandeis.

    Do you, or do you not, have “academic freedom” at the University? Does the rule of law, and the constitution apply there, or not? In the immortal words of Deputy Barney Fife (Andy Griffith show, played by Don Knotts, and where Ron Hoawrd got his start in acting and directing), “You’ve got to nip it in the bud!” Or you will have totalitarian thought control (It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the left [“For your own good.”] or the right [“That’s the way it should be.”]) All totalitarian regimes claim that they will rule “benevolently.” Make no mistake about it; they intend to rule.

    Good luck!

    Reply
  • P

    paulfromatlantaFeb 28, 2009 at 11:00 am

    What a horrific example of a professor with no respect for individual rights if the person’s views differ from her own. She has no business teaching.

    Reply
  • G

    glennFeb 28, 2009 at 10:57 am

    Ditto…if I am not mistaken the campus police are part of the CT State Police since CCSU is part of the Connecticut State University System. Their nickname is CC5-0.

    Reply
  • D

    DonFeb 28, 2009 at 10:51 am

    I call BS. Something like ts could never happen in the United States of America. We have the second amendment to protect our right to own firearms. We have the First Amendment to protect free speech.

    How did the campus police get a list of registered firearms? There is no national firearm registration. Has Conn. got own of their own? Perhaps the people of Conn. don’t think that a silly Constitutional Amendment applies to them? The Supreme Court must be populated with nimwhits, by university standards.

    I just can’t believe that the Campus Mall Cops, The University Elite, and the Professor in question would open themselves up to litigation, like this. This kid should sue the pants off of them. In Federal court, where namby pamby Conn. laws are irrelevant.

    I think this would be a good topic for the Universities Law class.

    Reply
  • M

    Max JohnsonFeb 28, 2009 at 10:49 am

    I can’t believe this isn’t even in the newspapers, “Teacher uses police to force own beliefs on student”, that’s a pretty scary title right there.
    Is this what America has become?

    Reply
  • K

    Kevin MFeb 28, 2009 at 10:48 am

    As a CCSU student I am embarrassed and ashamed of my University right now. The students involved should have every dime of the money the spent for this class returned to them, they should also be given a full 4.0 grade for the class and Ms Anderson should be let go at the end of this term. I have had many wonderful professors at CCSU who were more than happy to allow me to argue whatever stance of the day I took. This sort of knee-jerk idiocy should not be acceptable anywhere.

    Reply
  • C

    curtis41Feb 28, 2009 at 10:36 am

    This teacher was projecting her own gun angst on the students when she noted that “his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.” Colleges are generally liberalizing institutions. That includes professors who generally do not like guns and feel that their use needs to be governmentally regulated. A student in a classroom presentation poses no risk for taking a position, much like a debate on a timely subject. If the same student had proposed more “common sense” gun control, then I seriously doubt the teacher would have reported him, again, without foundation, to the campus police. This instructor is a prime example of the politicians and groups who continue to substitute their fears and judgment for reason or the law. I believe the 1st amendment applied in his presentation. Why then, did the 2nd amendment become inappropriate? I never cease to be amazed at the lack of understanding of Americans about the circumstances and reasons why the ability to keep and bear arms was so important in the formation of our republic. It was a natural, pre-existing, basic right to keep and bear arms, not only for defense of self, but also against the possibility of tyranny of the government over the governed. In terms of his logic of defense of life, law that would permit firearm carry and timeliness of the subject, the student earned an A. The teacher, however, would get an F for her judgmental knee-jerk response to information with which she did not personally agree, and an over-reaction. She owes the student an apology, although I seriously doubt he will get one.

    Reply
  • E

    ElliottFeb 28, 2009 at 10:27 am

    So, the word gun was mentioned in class and the professor calls to cops? This is a great precedent to set. The fact is, that Mr. Wahlberg is right, had the students or teachers and VTech been allowed to exercise their Constitutional right to carry a gun then the shooter may well have been stopped. This professor needs to be fired, or at the very least censured and have their tenure taken away!

    Reply
  • S

    ScottFeb 28, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Sara Adler’s statement would be more correct if she had stated “If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment? After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, and ANTI-AMERICAN ideas.”

    Reply
  • M

    MNFeb 28, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Those commenters that don’t see a problem with the way Mr. Wahlberg was treated, Susie in particular, really have no concept of what America is supposed to be about. The professor is a monumental idiot, and that it even went as far as it did is appalling and sad.

    Punishing people for their opinions is more in line with life in Cuba and China. I would happily ship these people off to those places, where they will better fit in, than have them in my country where some people still value freedom.

    Reply
  • R

    RrrowlfFeb 28, 2009 at 10:18 am

    The headline should read, ‘Free Speech Frightens Left Leaning Faculty’ .

    Reply
  • B

    BruceFeb 28, 2009 at 10:02 am

    .What do you expect from a the scum of the earth a communist Professor.

    She should be fired on the spot and toss on the street like the dog she is.

    The campus police should be fired for sticking their nose in someone gun files.

    Let see we have armed students no nutcase can kill 20 or 30 people.

    We have unarmed sheep in class they can be slaughtered.

    The police and campus police sure did a great job saving all the students in VA Tech right.

    Anyone that wants to disarm Free people is a traitor to American

    Reply
  • H

    HarlenFeb 28, 2009 at 9:54 am

    To R. Smith and Susie, you really need to wake up and realize we live in a world of violence. Nothing you say or do will ever change that, criminals will always be criminals, and no matter what law you pass, they will never obey them. Do you really think that if every law abiding gun owner was forced to turn in their guns, that the criminals would stand in line to turn them in too? Of course not, and all that would happen is there would be 80 million more unarmed potential victims in the US. You want to stop violence, punish the criminals and keep them locked up. You think the 1st amendment applies to only thoughts you agree with, maybe you should move to a country that doesn’t promote personal freedom, and the government controls every aspect of your life. I’m sure there are plenty of homes available in North Korea or China.

    As for the teacher, I hope they kick her to the curb, as personal political opinions have no place in the classroom.

    Reply
  • D

    DrewFeb 28, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Those of you who are speaking out against Mr. Wahlberg obviously lack logic, the ability to think rationally, the ability to interpret empirical evidence and the most basic instinct we are blessed with as humans: self-preservation.

    Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675 and re-think your stance.

    Firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens who have undergone an extensive FBI background check and who have paid a substantial financial sum to acquire firearms, ammunition and training are not at all dangerous to the general population. If anything, having a responsible, armed citizen in your classroom, bank, grocery store, movie theater parking lot or restaurant could very well save your life some day.

    As a recent college graduate, I experienced three separate lockdowns on my college campus during my senior year alone. On top of that, a string of robberies/assaults (muggings) occurred in a parking lot near the building most of my courses were in. Several sexual assaults on females occurred from non-students coming on campus to prey on women and vehicles in the parking lot were routinely looted and vandalized. “Campus Security” oftentimes could do nothing. They were understaffed, under-trained, under-equipped and frankly, underpaid to handle the volume and intensity of the crimes that were being perpetrated.

    Where did that put me? I was totally defenseless. Insane policies forbidding FBI-background-checked firearm owners such as myself are in place to “protect the students.” But protect them from what? They certainly weren’t protected from robbery, sexual assault, vandalism or burglary… And I can assure you, they were not being protected from a mass-shooting such as what happened at Virginia Tech.

    People such as myself who have the means, training and mentality to protect ourselves and our loved ones do not often become victims of these crimes.

    Liberal pacifist apologists who bend to the demands of criminals both continue to fuel the cycle of predation and foster an environment of fear, insecurity and helplessness on our college campuses.

    It’s time for people to start standing up and protecting themselves. This is about more than just the Second Amendment; this is about our most basic human rights. Something many of you obviously know NOTHING about.

    Reply
  • R

    R B TFeb 28, 2009 at 6:50 am

    Questions:

    Is there a special Nanny-911 number at CCSU to deal with lack of comfort issues?

    Did this quivering professor state in the syllabus that only happy-feel good communications would be allowed?

    Does John Walberg have a good Civil Rights attorney? *

    *methinks he’s in for some reverse tuition payments

    Reply
  • T

    TerryFeb 28, 2009 at 6:50 am

    To Susie: Your ignorance and reaction is stunning. For millions of us, including us women, guns are the equalizer and about self-defense, for ourselves and our loved ones. I’m more terrified that there are people like you who would resort to Nazi-like tactics and imprison a person soley on his opinions. Get a backbone, lady, and get some education about armed self-defense. SCOTUS has ruled over and over again that law enforcement has no duty to protect your butt; that is your responsibility and yours alone.

    Reply
  • K

    KansasGirlFeb 28, 2009 at 6:45 am

    This type of behavior from the ivory towers is only going to get worse.

    Reply
  • D

    dittoFeb 28, 2009 at 5:08 am

    How did an non government entity get a list of this mans guns?
    Something doesn’t pass the smell test. There very well may be a gun registration requirement in Conn. but just any podunk wannabe campus cops should not have access to it.

    Reply
  • J

    Johnny RebFeb 28, 2009 at 3:12 am

    Good to see the damnyankee liberals are at it again. That **** don’t fly down here.

    Reply
  • J

    Jim HoranFeb 27, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    “It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,”

    “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks”

    I am only commenting after reading the above article. What was the perceived risks? I think Professor Anderson needs to give a detailed response of this incident to the students and community on why she contacted the CCSU Police who then conducted an investigation into this matter. Her response is too vague and appears to be politically correct.

    If Professor Anderson cannot respond with a detailed statement, then I would suggest that an independent investigation be conducted into her quote “responsibility as a teacher”.

    Since the University Police has not responded at this time, I would suggest that “The Recorder get a copy of the police report and post it for all the readers.

    Thank you

    Jim Horan

    Reply
  • J

    JohnFeb 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Slanting the news.
    The third paragraph, “He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.”
    By changing “gun free zones” to “free gun zones” the writer completely reverses the concept and thus confuses the reader and slants the reader’s understanding.
    Gun-free-zones are venues where all the people present are certified to be helpless victims, inviting any evil person to safely attack all those defenseless people.
    It seems foolish to me that anyone would bray to the world that any person in such-and-such location is defenseless and can be attacked with impunity.
    I also find it hard to understand how a man who has been in the shooting war in Iraq can be thought to be incapable of safely handling a firearm when he is back in the States. I doubt that there are any firearm ‘handlers’ more professional than those veterans. I would think that any or all such veterans would be encouraged to carry concealed firearms on as many occasions and in as many places as possible.
    Best regards
    John

    Reply
  • S

    shyFeb 27, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I hope that when someone does a report on war, this professor calls the police and tells them that she thinks someone is about to start a war.

    this professor is unfit for service.

    Reply
  • W

    wutFeb 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    The whole thing about college campuses being unsafe comes down to this:

    A college campus is a gun free zone. This means that if you are an armed criminal, you are guaranteed to have the advantage in any confrontation. However, if they eliminate gun free zones, and just make college campuses like ALMOST EVERY OTHER PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF CAMPUS, then campus is just as safe as the grocery store, or the bookstore, or your neighborhood, or your cafe that you drink your coffee at. If you can’t feel safe having the same laws apply on campus as off, then are you saying that you can’t feel safe living anywhere in the US where concealed carry is legal?

    Reply
  • F

    Freedom is for those who will keep it.Feb 27, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    Always remember, fear mongering liberals will declare having an open mind is a good thing, until you disagree with them.

    The teacher should be severely reprimanded or fired for using the police to harass and try to silence that student.

    “I want a gun so I can MURDER my classmates” and “I want a gun so I can DEFEND my classmates” are two very different things, anyone who can’t judge the different clearly lacks the qualifications to teach our youth.

    Reply
  • H

    Henry BowmanFeb 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Liberal McCarthyism. It’s good to know that Mao’s Red Guard is alive and well in a Connecticut university.

    Reply
  • J

    johnFeb 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    I am astounded that I actually had the fortitude to put up with hippie liberal professors for the time it took for me to attain my Bachelor of Science. Teachers like this do their best to spread their liberal agenda via the classroom ‘pulpit’. They have no concept of the real world and hide within the world of academia. Makes me want to puke. The world of academia has become a cesspool of liberal ideology.

    Reply
  • J

    Jon SmiffFeb 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

    Keep on thinking that, let us know how it works out.

    Reply
  • R

    R. SmithFeb 27, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • E

    Eddie BrownFeb 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    how did the police know what firearms he had.. this professor should lose her job. didnt she walk all over his civil rights.

    Reply
  • D

    David GrossFeb 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    “Moderation” by whom?

    Reply
  • D

    David GrossFeb 27, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Can you say, “thought control?”

    The professor was “uncomfortable” with a discussion of the idea of independence, self-reliance, and responsibility for one’s self. So, she tried to suppress it, like a good Nazi, using the police for intimidation. And this is the very reason that lists of gun owners, and/or the guns they own, have no place in the hands of the government.

    Reply
  • S

    SusieFeb 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    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.

    Reply
  • D

    David MilsteadFeb 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    It looks like Prof. Anderson used an personal anti- gun motive to harass and prevent free speech. Quite a childish act on her behalf. I would question if she has enough common sense to be an effective instructor as a result of her actions in this event. If I was John Wahlberg, I would file harassment charges.

    Reply
  • P

    Phil FranceFeb 27, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    Some ideas make people uncomfortable, but that is no reason to avoid discussing them.

    Professor Anderson wasn’t trying to protect students from a perceived threat, she was trying to shield them from an opposing viewpoint. CCSU is an institution of higher learning, and, as a student, I’m disgraced to hear something like this was allowed to occur.

    Reply
  • G

    Gordon FreemanFeb 27, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    This is absolutely absurd. Professor Anderson should be ashamed of herself.

    Reply
  • O

    OlgaFeb 27, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    I hope Wahlberg sues the socks off of Anderson. Talk about a violation of his First Amendment rights! Additionally, people such as she share the responsibility for the deaths at Virginia Tech and other “Gun Free (actually Victim Disarmament) Zones” right along with the actual perpetrators.

    Reply
  • J

    John SmithFeb 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    My son attends CCSU so for the time being I choose to remain anonymous. I was born and raised in New Britain, served in the military and live in the area. I cannot believe that this student was called out for discussing concealed carry on campus! This is a matter of discussion throughout the firearm community in this nation and many states are changing their policy regarding concealed carry on campus. I have a CT handgun permit, and the fact is that anyone who has a permit has had a thorough FBI background check as well as a completely clean police record. That person has been trained, has been fingerprinted and photographed. The truth is that a permit holder likely has a cleaner record than your teachers or your college president.

    These same people sit next to you in restaurants, walk with you on the street and are in the bank with you and you are none the wiser. What changes when that person walks onto a college campus? The only thing different is that only the bad guys are carrying guns because THEY DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! A shooter can open fire on students and the ONLY thing capable of stopping that person is a good guy with a gun which you do not have.

    I could go on about this, but I won’t. I will post this story on my hunting and shooting blog which is known nationwide, and I will send it to my network of bloggers and podcasters who will do the same. I am also contacting the legal department of the NRA to see if any laws were broken. If discussion about guns bothers someone, that’s tough. Cowardice bothers me and results in the death of helpless students, which could also include my son. Burying your head in the sand will not make anyone safer, and if you depend on the police for your safety, you’ve got a lot to learn.

    Reply
  • S

    Shawn A Concerned StudentFeb 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Honestly, is this what America has been reduced to?
    The Professor used the police to enforce her own beliefs by punishing the student because he presented a set of ideals she disagreed with. Every day I grow more and more Disgusted with our University.
    What troubles me even more is that her misconduct will not only go ignored but it will be accepted by her peers and by the student body as a whole.

    Reply
  • B

    BobFeb 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    @ “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

    Not anymore, I’m afraid. A university campus is now a place where you are indoctrinated into Liberal Orthodoxy.

    Reply
  • J

    J-ByrdFeb 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Wow, this professor needs to quit smokin that stuff cause its makin her paranoid.

    First, he was talking about what could help prevent these atrocities from occuring in the first place, how does that equate to a perception of a threat?

    Second, I agree with his main point and have actually mentioned this too my friends. If law obiding students with no records were allowed to carry concealed handguns on campus, the perpetrators would think twice before going through with a plan of this nature. I know if I had a firearm during a school shooting situation I would feel alot more calm and assured, especially being able to protect any students within reach or even seek out the perpetrators to subdue or eliminate them. I served in the Marine Corps for 4 years with 2 tours of duty in Iraq and 1 in Afhanistan which has left me with superlative marksmanship skills with any firearm or rifle.

    However good that plan is there are some kinks to be worked out if it were implemented as such.
    First off, what would happen if you have a few students with the concealed privelage on campus and there was a shooting situation, if the students went out to seek the perpetrators and accidentally crossed paths with police, what is the factor to tell the difference between innocent bystander and a criminal in the process? That would be a major concern.

    I hope the police dont come raid my dorm. : P

    Reply
  • A

    AlexFeb 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Dear God, this is obscene.

    College professors make me so furious.

    “Professor” Anderson aught to be canned after this.

    Reply
  • Q

    QueueFeb 27, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    What happened to academic freedom?

    Reply
  • C

    Chris WagnerFeb 27, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Professor Anderson is an anti-rights bigot. Talking about rights is not threatening. Calling the police because someone dares to talk about rights is clearly intimidation. The professor should be reprimanded or fired for intimidation. To the students, not all people with advanced degrees are anti-rights bigots. Anderson debases the first and second amendments in one bigoted act. Good job “professor.”

    Reply
  • M

    Michael A SchillingFeb 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Perhaps the campus police and the professor might need more required reading.My suggested reading list.

    1- The State of CTs Constitution. Pay particular attention to Article 1 SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    2- Chapter 952 is CT penal code Sec. 53a-217b (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

    This refers to primary and secondary schools. As controversial as it may seem, as I read it CC on a CT campus is LEGAL. A local issuing authority may (Sheriff) make it one of the restrictions on the issuance of a permit. While is may be the school’s policy, this does not give the Campus Police the right to interrogate a student for speaking out against it.

    Gun ownership is legal, and interrogating a student for having an opinion on it is reprehensible.

    Reply
  • S

    spearweaselFeb 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

    No, not really. It hasn’t been the case for decades. That statement only applies to a particular set of “right ideas”. If you expect otherwise, you are a little naive. I hope things work out for him.

    Reply
  • M

    mike knappFeb 27, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    im a-fwaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
    I live in a world of scarorism
    where i F E A R everything

    people need to get a clue.
    you are being set up for destruction.

    sheople to the left of me
    sheople to the right
    here i am the only one with a brain to see thru the Globalist BS
    mk

    Reply
  • A

    AnonymousFeb 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    This professor Anderson should be ASHAMED.

    “It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,”

    Do those “all times” include those when you have a lunatic on campus? What are you going to do then? Call the cops to pick up the corpses?

    Reply
  • D

    DeannaFeb 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    I agree, what did happen to our first amendment? That professor should hand you a written apology letter.

    Reply
  • M

    Mike RossFeb 27, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    Wow. I can’t believe the campus police didn’t tell the professor to stop wasting their time.
    Mr. Wahlberg should file a lawsuit and Professor Anderson should be immediately fired.

    Reply
  • R

    RyanFeb 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    This is ridiculous. There was absolutely no reason that this liberal professor should have called the police. She is hiding behind the guise of “protecting the campus” when her sole and absolute intent appears to be to silence the opposing point of view. Imagine if the situation was reversed [a conservative professor silencing a young woman’s views on abortion, for instance]. This professor should be disciplined and the University deserves a hefty lawsuit.

    Reply
  • F

    FiftycalFeb 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Let’s see. What group was it that threw people in jail for their beliefs and/or their religion? Hmmm, something to do with “socialists”. National socialists maybe? What did they used to call them? Oh, yah.

    NAZI

    Reply
  • S

    Sean O'DonnellFeb 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    I’m surprised my college didn’t investigate me for writing this is the school newspaper:

    http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2007/09/17/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-2970640.shtml

    Reply
  • K

    Kevin YostFeb 27, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    It seems to me that a gistapo -“we are watching you now”- like message was intended on the part of campus police and/or the professor. My hat is off to the student for keeping his head. I would have reacted badly. Incedenses like this are why most gun owners are against registration of firearms, because you never know when some tin badge wearing brown shirt in training is going to use that list against you for confiscation or harassment. The anti-gun types keep telling us that the government won’t abuse our privacy by having the list, but here is a perfect example of why no one should have that list.

    “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.” is the most foolish pravda I’ve ever heard. Consider that Mr. Wahlberg was summoned by campus police while at work, he had nothing to worry about, right? How many people actually think that would mean good news was forthcoming? Then, he is forced to spend his personal time, he will never get back, to be grilled for no clear reason. I say forced, because coming into police station on your own is not a choice, when if you don’t, they will come to you. They made a point to let Mr. Wahlberg know they knew what guns he had, and it seems to me, they were inferring that they believed he was breaking the law and carrying on campus. I would have told them it was none of their business where my guns were. Police can not arrive in time and professors should be carrying, not turning in their students for wanting to change failed policy.

    Reply
  • A

    Albert A RaschFeb 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Editor,

    I hope the University has a good lawyer.

    I hope the teacher’s union has good attorneys.

    I hope Professor Anderson is comfortable with putting a student through an interrogation. Perhaps she would feel more comfortable in Stalinist Soviet Union, where all thought was by the book, without concern of independent thinking, and where she could, for whatever reason, accuse a student without fear of repercussion.

    Suffice it to say that neither of my sons will ever attend a school that allows a teacher to stifle the thinking of a student.

    Sincerely,
    Albert A Rasch
    The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles

    Reply
  • R

    RhayaderFeb 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    This is unconscionable. Suppression of any idea, now matter how inflammatory, is completely inappropriate for an academic university. If the student’s presentation was in some way failing to satisfy the requirements of the course, he should have been given a grade reflecting that.

    Short of that though, Professor Anderson’s action is no better than burning books. It is an intentional filtering of ideas, an intellectual bias. To involve the police is incredibly egregious and she should absolutely be reprimanded.

    By the way, the student may have had a point: strict gun laws do absolutely nothing to curb gun violence. Just like drug prohibition, “gun prohibition” simply does not work and is actually detrimental.

    Reply
  • O

    Off TopicFeb 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Thats what sucks about going to a liberal ass school.

    There should be no gun free zones.

    Reply
  • D

    Dylan BrunsFeb 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Professors like this deserve to be fired. If you can’t deal with alternative points of view, you have no right to teach in a place for learning and discussion. Its kind of creepy to call the cops on someone for having the view that adult students have the right to defend themselves from attack.

    Reply
  • N

    N.U.G.U.N.Feb 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Oh my…it’s Connecticut…

    I am so glad I left that state!

    Reply
  • N

    N.U.G.U.N.Feb 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Professors…

    All about free speech so long as it’s about the Left’s agenda. Free speech and civil rights go out the window once the matter at hand is not “certified” content.

    If a professor did this on a left issue, we’d be reading about them being suspended from their job.

    Reply
  • M

    mattFeb 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    I do not agree with the philosophy that is gaining popularity, especially in Britain, of “if you suspect something, report it.”

    There is a definite line between reporting genuinely suspicious activity and reporting any and every behavior which makes a person the slightest bit uncomfortable.

    In short you do not have the right to not be offended.

    More people need to react to logical, rational thought processes rather than react to their fear.

    Reply
  • T

    TommyFeb 27, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    What the hell? Oh yeah its a blue state. Disbelief officially suspended. Oh now it makes sense. Hope nobody discusses anything else scary.

    Reply
  • J

    John HardinFeb 27, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    I smell a lawsuit under 18USC241…

    Reply
  • L

    LysanderFeb 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    “They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.”

    But not “scared and uncomfortable” enough to file their own complaints. but rather have the professor do it. Bravo! I’d be very tempted to wager that the only person who was “scared and uncomfortable” was the professor – due to her unreasonable hoplophobia.

    Reply
  • R

    RustmeisterFeb 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Free and open exchange of ideas, as long as they echo the campus establishment.

    Reply
  • M

    mike w.Feb 27, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    The only plausible explanation for this is that professor Anderson has mental problems. Not only should Mr. Wahlberg take this up with University administration, he should probably transfer out of Anderson’s class. I know I personally would NOT want to be around someone who reacted in such an insane and irrational manner, particularly given the position of authority that a professor has over his/her students.

    Reply
  • S

    Scott in Phx AzFeb 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Wow. Witness the new lefts police state.

    Discuss politically unpopular ideas and get hauled in and questioned by the police.

    What a sad state that our institutions of “higher education” have come to.

    The professor should be fired. She is guilt of anti-gun bigotry. But, then, that is acceptable bigotry now according to the “intelligentsia”.

    Reply
  • R

    RobFeb 27, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Once again it is proven that those who can’t, teach. For Gods sake it’s a communication class. Without hearing the speech it’s impossible to objectively tear the decision apart, however I’m sure this is a mentally ill professor who perceived a threat because someone mentioned firearms. Fear of an inanimate object is a indacation of schizophrenia, fear of words is just plain sick.

    Reply
  • F

    FrankFeb 27, 2009 at 11:06 am

    So much for the first amendment. Say anything against the Chosen One or his policies and you get denounced to the gestapo.

    Time to hit the reset button.

    Reply
Activate Search
Professor Called Police After Student Presentation