Gun-toting Prof: NRA member on anti-gun campus

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040405.shtml


Why I joined the N.R.A.
Mike S. Adams (archive)

April 5, 2004 | Print | Send


It was just after midnight in January of 1993 when John and Tiffany left a party at the Sigma Chi house in Starkville, Mississippi. The band was winding down as the couple walked to their car in the parking lot close to where Highway 12 runs into Scott Field on the campus of Mississippi State University.

When they came upon a man who was trying to break into a car parked near their own, all hell broke loose. Before they knew it, they had been abducted at gunpoint. Words cannot describe the horror that John witnessed before Tiffany’s life was taken. Shortly thereafter, he too was murdered execution-style by the side of Highway 45. Many tears were shed on Monday night when our fraternity met to mourn the deaths of the two young students.

After the murders, I had to endure driving by the murder site every Thursday night at about six o’clock on my way to Tupelo, Mississippi. My band played once a week at a bar in Tupelo called Jefferson Place. That meant that I had to drive by the murder site again on my way home at about two in the morning. The images got to me after a couple of weeks, so I called my friend David and asked whether he was still selling his .357 magnum. It was a model 19 by Smith and Wesson. I bought the gun thinking that it would be better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

After I moved to Wilmington, North Carolina, I sold that .357 magnum. At the time, my friend Barry Whitehead told me that selling a gun was always a big mistake. Three years later, when I bought my first house in downtown Wilmington, I learned that Barry was right. Despite rampant crack sales, it took almost nine months to get the police to take an interest in the drug trafficking in my neighborhood. Later, I bought my second .357 magnum and a concealed carry permit to go along with it.

In the three years that I lived in that neighborhood, I rarely “used†my permit by carrying a concealed weapon. Nonetheless, it came in handy late one evening when I was walking in my neighborhood and accidentally stumbled upon a crack deal. When the dealer asked what I as doing there, I simply told him that it was my neighborhood. He smiled and told me his name. I suppose that he knew I was carrying a gun because of my confidence. Two months later, eighteen people were arrested smoking crack in his house. I should know because I arranged the drug bust. I told him it was my neighborhood. He should have listened.

For those who don’t know, the concealed carry laws that have been enacted across the land have had a clear effect on serious crime that most social scientists refuse to recognize. Serious scholars such as John Lott have shown_that lives are saved as a result of these laws. Nonetheless, Lott has been shunned by academics more interested in showing their classes “Bowling for Columbine†than in actually saving people’s lives.

Less murder, less rape, and less robbery would be nice unless, of course, it interferes with the liberal desire to take another shot at Marxism. No pun intended, of course.

As an out-of-the-closet gun owner, N.R.A. member, and hunter you can imagine the comments that I hear from disapproving faculty members here at my place of employment. When one colleague learned I was in the N.R.A., he asked why “we†think that everyone should own an “assault rifle.†That discussion ended when I asked him to tell me what an “assault rifle†was. He didn’t know. He just knew he hated them because Dan Rather said they were bad. Oh, the intellectual curiosity.

Of course, giving up my concealed-carry permit and quitting the N.R.A. would never be sufficient to redeem me in the eyes of the anti-gun fanatics here in the ivory tower. My status as a hunter is alone sufficient to condemn me in their eyes. Many of my colleagues who fail to muster compassion for unborn humans are staunch defenders of the local deer population. The fact that the overpopulation of deer causes numerous highway fatalities is of little concerned to them. And most would rather see a deer wrapped around the grill of a Ford Expedition and dragged down the highway than to have it experience a clean, quick death with the help of my Browning A-Bolt.

I know that my membership in the N.R.A. helps to neutralize these extremists, some of whom would outlaw hunting scopes because they are “unfair†to the deer. If you think I am kidding, think again. I have actually heard it suggested in the faculty lunchroom.

Of course, I really don’t mind when the academic anti-gun nuts use the First Amendment to express their opposition to the Second Amendment. Every time they do, I just head down to the local sporting goods store and buy another gun that I don’t really need.

When I joined the N.R.A., I became part of an organized effort to neutralize the wacky ideas of the anti-gun lobby in America. I also believe that the N.R.A. won the last Presidential election for George W. Bush. Even Bill Clinton says so and we all know that guy never lies. He isn’t in the N.R.A.

Some people say that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Maybe an N.R.A. member is a liberal whose unarmed friends were killed by the side of the highway on a cold night in January.
 
When one colleague learned I was in the N.R.A., he asked why “we†think that everyone should own an “assault rifle.†That discussion ended when I asked him to tell me what an “assault rifle†was. He didn’t know. He just knew he hated them because Dan Rather said they were bad. Oh, the intellectual curiosity.

I think he means "assault weapon" here (or at least, he should). The NRA, as I recall, was a big supporter of the NFA, which is the primary reason we peasants are only allowed to own real assault rifles after numerous, completely un-Constitutional restrictions and taxes.
 
I was just about to post this.

Did you use the link from Boortz's web site?

Anyway, I'm an out-of-the-closet gun owner and hunter. Most people I associate with know of my"gun nuttiness" and think nothing of it. A few however, were not too supportive.

Of course, they threw the standard anti arguments into mildly spirited debates. Most of my counter-arguments were met by counter-arguments to my counter-arguments. I finally asked them one question which, apparently, forced them to re-evaluate their position; "what would you do if confronted, right now, with a serious threat to your safety?"

Without fail, all answered that they would call the police. I then mentioned that in the 15+ minutes it wold take for the police to arrive, they would most likely be dead. Silence would ensue for a long moment; they would then either change the subject or say that I was being paranoid. Interestingly, though, after being asked that question, they never challenged me again.
 
We have our own gun-toting prof as a member of this board.I hope he doesn't mind me saying so,but my good friend known as Boltaction is a professor at the university of Maryland-Collage Park,who has the only vehicle in the facalty parking lot on campus with a NRA sticker on his vehicle,he's also a certified firearms instructor and a RSO. he's involved in other community activities also. I'm honored and proud to call him my friend.
 
I had a professor (university of maryland college park) who wore an NRA hat to class. I don't know if he had a weapon but he always wore a baggy loose T shirt untucked to class It was a criminal justice class no less.

Actually I kind of doubt he had a weapon because of Maryland's restrictive CCW laws.
 
No problem Cliff...No one challenges me at College Park - as near as I can tell, most know my stance on firearms. They seem to not want to LEARN what my views are, or WHY I am a member of the NRA (ignorance is bliss?).

Personally, I generally do NOT express my personal views in class ( i.e., I do not wear NRA hats in class). In those cases where it is unavoidable, as when discussing e.g., economics, I tell students what my political viewpoint is. I do this when appropriate, just to separate myself from my colleagues who give their opinions UNDER the COVER of "intellectualism". I suggest to students that when their OTHER professors talk about anything that might be construed as political, they should ask their professor to disclose THEIR political leanings.
 
It is really too bad there are so many disapproving clowns out there, but I'm with this guy. Anyone who knows me even remotely well knows that I'm unabashedly and unashamedly pro-gun. Good for this guy, and thanks to the topic poster for posting this.
 
should be titled NRA fascist on anti-gun campus.

Despite rampant crack sales, it took almost nine months to get the police to take an interest in the drug trafficking in my neighborhood.

Nonetheless, it came in handy late one evening when I was walking in my neighborhood and accidentally stumbled upon a crack deal. When the dealer asked what I as doing there, I simply told him that it was my neighborhood. He smiled and told me his name. I suppose that he knew I was carrying a gun because of my confidence. Two months later, eighteen people were arrested smoking crack in his house. I should know because I arranged the drug bust. I told him it was my neighborhood. He should have listened.

I can see how someone would justify interfering with those people if a) they threatened violence or b) they stole stuff or c) they played obnoxious music at night. However he doesn't say any of that. He says people were engaging in certain behaviors he disapproved of. So he sends eighteen people to jail for admittedly a STUPID behavior but one that violated his rights how? I'm sorry Rock Jock, freedom from your neighbors smoking crack is not encompassed by the rights the founding fathers had in mind, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If it gets out that that gun toting NRA member was the jerk that finked on those likely gangbangers... he might need that CCW. Fortunatly the hi-points and bryco's they attack with will jam without firing :)


atek3
 
Last edited:
Cliff:
We have our own gun-toting prof as a member of this board.

Actually, more than one. I am a college professor, and I think there is at least one other on The High Road, though at the moment I can't remember who. Either senility is striking early or the end-of-the-semester rush is catching up with me.

Unlike Boltaction, my car does not sport an NRA sticker. There are at least two reasons for that: 1) I'm not an NRA member 2) I don't put bumper stickers on my vehicles (so neither do I have a GOA sticker on my car).
 
Without fail, all answered that they would call the police. I then mentioned that in the 15+ minutes it wold take for the police to arrive, they would most likely be dead. Silence would ensue for a long moment; they would then either change the subject or say that I was being paranoid. Interestingly, though, after being asked that question, they never challenged me again.

Isn't the average time in urban areas far greater than 15 minutes? More like 45+? Anyone have anyplace they can point me to on response times?
 
I can see how someone would justify interfering with those people if a) they threatened violence or b) they stole stuff or c) they played obnoxious music at night. However he doesn't say any of that. He says people were engaging in certain behaviors he disapproved of. So he sends eighteen people to jail for admittedly a STUPID behavior but one that violated his rights how?

Ummm... crack is illegal. People who buy, sell, and use crack are criminals. And crack users are unable to hold down jobs, so to pay for their crack they need to commit robberies and burglaries in his neighborhood. By getting that little operation busted up, he turned the safety knob in his neighborhood up a click. If all of his law-abiding neighbors were to do the same instead of cowering in fear or being unwilling to "violate the rights" of the violent criminals who prey upon them, maybe they could stop worrying about being mugged and burglarized?
 
Isn't the average time in urban areas far greater than 15 minutes? More like 45+? Anyone have anyplace they can point me to on response times?

I'm pretty sure that in an urban area, response times are close to that. I've got some data on my machine at home that I used to "assist" my step-son in writing a pro-gun paper.

I do know that, where I live, police response times can actually be measured in hours. An advantage, I suppose, of living in the boonies.
 
instead of cowering in fear or being unwilling to "violate the rights" of the violent criminals who prey upon them, maybe they could stop worrying about being mugged and burglarized?
atek3 made it quite clear that there was no mention of that in the article. He also said that if that happened he would have been justified to turn them in.
Ummm... guns are illegal. People who buy, sell, and use guns are criminals. And gun users are closet psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and kill people who cut them off in traffic. By getting that gun user busted, he turned the safety knob in his neighborhood up a click. If all of his law-abiding neighbors were to do the same instead of cowering in fear or being unwilling to "violate the rights" of the violent criminals who prey upon them, maybe they could stop worrying about getting shot while at the grocery store?
Not so nice when the unwarranted generalizations and assumptions are thrown back at you, is it? If they weren't hurting anyone, and the professor never said they were, then all he did was throw 18 people in jail because they didn't live the life he wanted them to live. How is he different than Diane Feinstein, other than he likes guns?
 
Folks, crack cocaine is a pure poison. Nothing less. Where crack cocaine is, violent crimes against good people happen.

I can state this for a fact--I patrol an area of Tacoma, WA with a high concentration of prostitution and drug use--perhaps one of the highest in the State.

No flame intended, but for those of you who think that it was wrong to orchestrate a drug bust, do this:

Find one of the locales where drugs are used freely and openly. You know--crack, meth, X, etc.

Tell your wife or daughter to drive down to the heart of that area, park their car and walk around for a bit.

Now tell me--do you feel comfortable upholding the rights of these people now?

Again, no flame intended.
 
Most people I associate with know of my"gun nuttiness" and think nothing of it. A few however, were not too supportive.
I've found an interesting* argument come up when people at my law school find out my position on guns. A few people will admit that while its okay for me to have guns (because I'm not a threatening minority, I guess), there are those it is "obviously" not okay for, and therefore I have a duty to give up my "toys" for the general welfare of disarming others.

I find most anti-people (in law school anyway) clam up when I ask them if they support the 4th and 5th amendments despite the murders, rapists and thieves that go free because of them (I have yet to find a law student that doesn't agree that at least with those amendments in place, its a necessary tradeoff), and then ask them to explain why they suddenly become squeamish with the 2nd. Some try to go on about the utility of protecting the individual from the state, which gets me giggling; they also go on about police protection negating the need for guns, which gets me pointing to Lott and explaining the danger of relying solely on police.

Really, if more people had honest facts about guns (and police response times), they'd be a lot more comfortable with them.




*nauseating
 
crack cocaine is a pure poison. Nothing less.
No doubt.

If it were legal it wouldn't require such violent and predatory behavior to succeed selling it. People are recruited who show these qualities and rewarded for developing them more fully - just like prohibition. The beer distributors and rum runners stopped shooting at each other as soon as prohibition ended and they haven’t done it since.

I am not saying that violent and predatory behavior shouldn’t be punished. It should. Severely and harshly. But we should only punish the violent and predatory behavior not smoking crack or using other drugs.

As I have said before, the prohibition on these items breeds violence not the items themselves. Did prohibition end child abuse, domestic violence, gangs, unemployment among the poor? All of those were reasons cited for its institution. No, if anything it made those things worse and exported it on a mass and brutal scale to people who hadn’t been previously exposed to it. Just like the War on Drugs, the problems it was meant to fix were multiplied 100 fold.

The only difference is that people recognized that and ended prohibition instead of launching a War on Alcohol that would have been useless, cost billions, and eroded civil rights.
 
Without fail, all answered that they would call the police. I then mentioned that in the 15+ minutes it wold take for the police to arrive, they would most likely be dead. Silence would ensue for a long moment; they would then either change the subject or say that I was being paranoid. Interestingly, though, after being asked that question, they never challenged me again
ojibweindian ... my emphasis added here. Indeed this about the most potent ''conversation stopper'' ... there is only ONE rational answer .... but because these people are embarrassed or ashamed to admit it .... they clam up and change the subject or yes .... resort to calling you paranoid.

It does tho in many cases result in at least some fessing up .... and maybe they go away and think properly. The anti mindset is so very strange ..... and at the heart of it seems to be the eternal ''guns=bad'' .... followed by ''get guns off the street = good''.... they are so misguided and rarely offer an argument that is remotely logical or coherent.

It is forever .. :banghead: :banghead:
 
From some of the comments here, I have to suppose that most posters here haven't lived near a drug house. Discussions about legalizing drugs are all well and good, but the reality right now is that they make a neighborhood quite dangerous. Try it for a couple of years and you'll probably find yourself resorting to some means of getting rid of the dealers, legal or not.
 
Atek,

While I don't disagree people should be able to put what they want in their bodies, I tend to think that those who do under our current system of criminalization are guilty of crimes other than use of drugs, if for no other reason that their ability to hold a job is impaired and that they must find "extralegal" means to obtain their funds. Consequently, I wouldn't want these folks around my neighborhood. And this says nothing of the dealers who are frequently willing to use violence to maintain their territory, collect money from users, and protect themselves from concerned citizens tipping of LE.

Prostitution is a victimless crime, IMO. That doesn't mean I want those involved plying their trade on the sidewalk in front of my house, though.

Making quite a generalization there, aren't we?

He probably means those jobs other than crack whore, drug dealer, armed robber, burglar, entertainment figure, pro athlete. I assume doctors, lawyers, scientists and engineers find it difficult to use crack and work.
 
From some of the comments here, I have to suppose that most posters here haven't lived near a drug house. Discussions about legalizing drugs are all well and good, but the reality right now is that they make a neighborhood quite dangerous. Try it for a couple of years and you'll probably find yourself resorting to some means of getting rid of the dealers, legal or not.

Don't you think that phenomena like "drug houses" will utterly disappear when drugs are legalized? There's no reason for them to be if you can just buy from a regular store; drug users won't need to try and congregate to avoid the police in such dangerous places. It will, most likely, end up with those who still can't handle it dealing with such things like alcoholics deal with it now. There aren't any "booze houses" or "tobacco houses" that I know of.

The whole "drug dealer" thing as it exists now will bottom out when corporations move in with far greater efficiency and the guarantee of uncontaminated product--Wal-Mart, anyone?--and so while, yes, as it stands now, those things are an issue, but when I see some people using them--I don't believe you are, necessarily--to try and argue against legalization just doesn't make sense.
 
BoltAction and Cliff,

As a fellow academic (if teaching in a PG School qualifies as such:rolleyes: ) I feel your pain when having to deal with the anti atmospere in that area. My colleagues have never come out and asked whether I own guns or not, but I've made my views on Michael Moore, Herr Gargiola, the AWB, etc known in crystal clear terms. They, of course, view me as some kind of barbarian. On the other hand, they leave me alone:evil:
 
Less murder, less rape, and less robbery would be nice unless, of course, it interferes with the liberal desire to take another shot at Marxism.

The leftist extremists hate law-abiding, independent, morally conscious Americans far more than murderers, robbers, rapists, and the rest of the criminals: criminals don't vote, and unless they disarm us, they know we'll never accept their socialist hell hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top