If You Favor Second Amendment Rights, You Must Be Crazy

Status
Not open for further replies.

chieftain

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,264
Location
The Free State of Arizona
Read this carefully. Don't be surprised if the same sort of attacks become more prevalent against pro gun folks. So far they can't win the fight straight up.

Also think about the next Presidential election. If the Dimocrats win, we will lose the US Supreme court, again. We could lose it IF a Republican wins, but we will lose it if the Dims win. This all refers to the firearms issues.

That is an absolute.

Go figure.

Fred

College Admins: If You Favor Second Amendment Rights, You Must Be Crazy
By Jon Sanders
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

A Minnesota college student was suspended and ordered to undergo "mental health evaluation" for his response to campuswide e-mails from school officials concerning the Virginia Tech massacre.

The college, Hamline University, a private, liberal-arts institution affiliated with the Methodist Church, has a policy on "Freedom of Expression and Inquiry" that guarantees that Hamline students will be "free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly or privately."

With such a strong guarantee on students' "freedom from censorship and control" by the university, student Troy Scheffler's e-mail must have been horrifically bad to warrant such a crackdown. Right?

Wrong. What Scheffler did was make a gun-rights case for concealed-carry permits on campus to help ward off potential Cho Seung-Huis before they strike Hamline. This was no monstrous act; in fact, it was in line with public debate across the nation following Cho's rampage, not to mention an issue of perennial debate in America. Many researchers, most notably John R. Lott Jr., have shown conclusively that gun ownership itself wards off crime while laws banning guns lead to increases in crimes. Criminals are less likely to strike if they have reason to believe their prospective victims could be armed.

Scheffler had written in his April 17 e-mail reply to David Stern, Hamline vice president of student affairs, that "Considering this university also pushes 'diversity' initiatives like VA Tech, maybe its 'leadership' will reconsider [Hamline's] ban on conceal carry law abiding gun owners... Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldnt have happened if the school wouldnt have banned their permits a few months ago."

He added, "I just dont understand why leftists dont understand that criminals dont care about laws; that is why they’re criminals... Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law abiding citizens rights."

Two days later, Hamline President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus about Virginia Tech. Scheffler replied to that e-mail also, expanding upon his comments to Stern.

In both messages, Scheffler made it clear to all but the most hysterically inclined person that his advocacy of concealed-carry permits was to protect the students from criminals. Scheffler recognized that this protection would be afforded primarily by predators' foreknowledge that any one of the students at Hamline could shoot back, but also – given that the administrators had both brought up the VT massacre – by students being able to stop a killing rampage before it got started.

In short, what Scheffler wrote was no preamble to a blood-lusty explosion of violence. At worst it was crude criticism of the university administration combined with a stark assessment of the true risk of a concealed-carry society like Virginia Tech's: total defenselessness against a Columbine-inspired mass murderer. Regardless, it should have been protected by the university's stated policy guaranteeing free expression.

Nevertheless, on April 23 Scheffler received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert that informed him his e-mails were "deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code" and that he was placed on "interim suspension" to be lifted only after he agreed to a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional.

Scheffler contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, whose service in the cause of liberty in opposition to the petty tyrants populating American academe is invaluable. The history of the case, including the offending e-mails, are viewable on the FIRE's web site (www.thefire.org). Hamline officials say they moved to suspend after Scheffler failed to meet with university officials over his e-mails (he was given less than one full business day to do so) and that he is also the subject of "critical input from various members of the Hamline community" (which was news to Scheffler, nor has he been told of their identities nor given a chance to defend himself against their allegations, whatever they are – if those people exist at all).

The Soviet Union was notorious for psychiatric abuse, the use of psychiatric hospitals for the incarceration of political dissidents. Human Rights Watch accuses the government of China of psychiatric abuse of political activists, whistleblowers, various individuals and especially members of Falun Gong. Declaring dissidence a sign of mental instability is one of the lesser-known tools of the despot.

Psychiatric abuse is not something one expects in America, but it happens. For example, in June, the assistant director of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Joey Gardner, was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after blowing the whistle on DMV Commissioner George Tatum for allegedly seeking help to get his friend a vintage vehicle title for a replica (Tatum later resigned). In 2001, a Temple University student, Michael Marcavage, was involuntarily committed by his university for protesting a campus production of "Corpus Christi," a play that depicts Jesus Christ as a homosexual having carnal relations with his disciples.

In his April 19 e-mail, Scheffler wrote pessimistically, "Im sure this plea of common sense will fall on deaf ears." While the fault wasn't with the ears, as he had predicted, Scheffler's plea did indeed fall on disabled faculties.
 
Sometimes, I seriously fear for this country.
What is happnening?
Can we solve this without violence?
Will they listen?
I hope to God so.
 
Beyond ridiculous

He should immediately hire a lawyer--a real shark with sharp teeth--and file suit for millions. (Sometimes aggressive litigation is a good thing.)

Given that this kid made no threats of any kind, the college doesn't have a leg to stand on--especially given their written policy guaranteeing free speech. This kid may be able to retire very early and buy all the guns he wants!
 
I am pro-gun, as is obvious by by membership at THR.

Scheffler's emails do have a threatening undertone. If I, as a pro-gun university administrator, had recieved them, I would likely not want him on campus for awhile either.

Read the actual emails.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8475.html



Scheffler's a kook and I sure don't want him on my side or speaking for me. His screeds are rife with bad spelling and grammar, and practically ooze crazy. Couple that with the fact that he owns guns, as a uni administrator I sure would be cautious when dealing with him.

This wasn't just a simple case of:
STUDENT: "Respectfully, I think that students should be able to CCW."
ADMINISTRATION: "Eek! Scary crazy person! Off to the loony bin with you!"

...but people see it that way, leading to...

INTERNET: "OMGz teh Soviet Union! Stupid liberls!"
 
Last edited:
"Scheffler's emails do have a threatening and somewhat racist undertone."


why is that these days anything that isn't a full-blown, glowing endorsement of any and all things "ethnic" is automatically branded racist ? you failed to consider the truth in his statement.
 
Also think about the next Presidential election. If the Dimocrats win, we will lose the US Supreme court, again.

Not necessarily. Stevens and Ginsberg are the oldest on the Court, born in 1920 and 1933 respectively - therefore, even if they retire/die and are replaced with liberal anti's, it won't change the Court's outlook, since they are liberal anti's. Scalia and Kennedy are next, having been born in 1936 each. Scalia will be the loss when he goes, but fortunately, he has been sticking around ostensibly because he didn't want to ruin a 5-4 conservative majority. I don't know Kennedy's 2nd A stance - he's a fence sitter on a lot of issues but tends to be more conservative generally. Breyer in '38 and Souter in '39, both libs. So based only on age (I know, pretty shabby vacuum, but no worse than the open-ended statement that we will lose the Court if the Dems win), the conservatives have an advantage on the court - especially with Roberts at a youthful 52 years old and Alito at only 57 - just babes. I'm an optimist.
 
Fred, original post edited with links. The first link is to the whole article.
 
why is that these days anything that isn't a full-blown, glowing endorsement of any and all things "ethnic" is automatically branded racist ? you failed to consider the truth in his statement.

He's not racist, his rhetoric has racist undertones what with the "European ancestry" bit. His words are poorly chosen and inflammatory, because they make people think "racist". And that's why I don't want him on my side.

This kid probably think that he's taking a stand against "the liberal establishment", but his unpolished writing and wandering points (were you against affirmative action? Or no-CCW rules? Or diversity?) just make him (and us) look bad.
 
I cannot believe the poor grammar I see college kids using these days.

Scheffler is bigotted and a racist.
I wonder how much he has contributed in taxes ?
 
I don't think that having opinions against affirmative action makes one a racist. All he's saying is that he doesn't want foreigners to get free education while he pays for it. That's certainly not racist.

And even if he did make racist comments, he is free to do so, and the college would be in violation of its own policy to censor him.

His comments were not threatening or suggestive of mental problems in any manner, and that's what's in question right now; not his political ideals.
 
you failed to consider the truth in his statement.

What truth? His ramblings about his tuiton footing the bill for the African students? The dipstick has probably not yet heard of the endowment fund.
 
I can sorta see where he is coming from but yets his analogies and examples are a bit poorly stated...
I (am a white male) and was offered a FULL MINORITY scholarship to a predominatly black college in my area..... I was actually fairly offended by the offer....... it IS a sad state when someone is given preferential OR negetive treatment SIMPLY based on their skin color....
I really wish our culture was past the issue of race, however they're still exist too many race based activist groups to let it drop...
 
The university is a place for free expression and exchange of ideas, regardless of how we may feel about those ideas. As long as the person does not use offensive language or personal attacks in doing so, they should be free to express their opinion in academia without retribution from professors or staff. Tragically, the American campus is now more about leftist social indoctrination than it is about free inquiry.

On a semi-related note, I noticed in the campus paper on Tuesday that some protesters were having a "die-in" at UVA to advocate gun control in response to the shootings here at VT. Interesting that they didn't have the guts to come do the dying-in here and say it to our face.....
 
OK, OK, OK! I'M WRONG. HE'S NOT RACIST, NOR DO HIS COMMENTS HAVE RACIST UNDERTONES. OK? I'M WRONG, Y'ALL ARE RIGHT.

I still stand by my opinion that this kid is a piece of work, and I do not want him speaking for me on RKBA issues. If his comments had been polite, persistent, spelled correctly, and well-written, he might have just got Hamline's CCW policy changed. In his statements, he comes off like a loon and undermines RKBA - like it or not.

I still find it offensive when people rail incoherently against affirmative action with unsubstantiated raving like Scheffler did. Maybe that's what tripped my "racist" alarm. I'm sorry.

As long as the person does not use offensive language or personal attacks in doing so, they should be free to express their opinion in academia without retribution from professors or staff.

You can not use threatening language and still come off like a crazy person like Scheffler did. If you own guns, you have a public duty to the rest of us gun owners to actually think about what you're saying before shooting off your mouth.
 
Scheffler is an utter idiot, and about the last person I'd pick to represent me in a controversial 2nd Amendment stance, such as allowing CCW on campus.

His ramblings on the topic of allowing permitted people to carry on campus are vitriolic, and his comments regarding race serve only to undermine and distract from any point he was trying to make.

Quite franky, his writing is abysmal. F.
 
In this case I'm glad I was able to read the actual emails and form my own opinion rather than have someone else tell me what to think.

LewRockwell.com paints him as an innocent college student who sent out a well-reasoned, polite letter in support of and got unjustly smacked down. His emails show him as an incoherent loony gun owner that I sure wouldn't want to sit in class next to.
 
I am glad to see myself in such esteemed company

I brought up the same points as jl and Justin on another gun forum and was accused of being a liberal affirmative action loving PC koolaid drinker for it

My actual assessment was that if he had not used Aryan Nation type talking points he may have been received better

In this case I'm glad I was able to read the actual emails and form my own opinion rather than have someone else tell me what to think.
I only read the excerpts that his defenders wanted us to see and came up with the same conclusions you did

If you notice as the emails progress his diction and coherency diminishes.
Tis is a sigh of rage and is certainly something to be looked into
 
revised opinion

After reading Scheffler's emails, I am forced to revise my opinion. A psychological evaluation may, or may not, be appropriate here, but it's certainly defensible. A judgment call, if you like, and it's better to err on the side of caution.

Scheffler has not yet achieved full-blown nuthood, but he surely seems headed in that direction. Spooky.
 
I was born and raised a Methodist. I didn't even bother to read his e-mails. If he's pro-gun the church is against him. John

The school is "affiliated with the Methodist Church".

I'll post, very briefly, the Methodist viewpoint:

But first, let's just skip to the juicy part:

"call upon all governments of the world in which there is a United Methodist presence to establish national bans on ownership by the general public of handguns, assault weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits,"

_______________________
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=937

"4) develop advocacy groups within local congregations to advocate for the eventual reduction of the availability of guns in society with a particular emphasis upon handguns, handgun ammunition, assault weapons, automatic weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits, and guns that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal detection devices. These groups can be linked to community-based, state, and national organizations working on gun and violence issues;"

"5) support federal legislation to regulate the importation, manufacturing, sale, and possession of guns and ammunition by the general public. Such legislation should include provisions for the registration and licensing of gun purchasers and owners, appropriate background investigation and waiting periods prior to gun purchase, and regulation of subsequent sale;"

"6) call upon all governments of the world in which there is a United Methodist presence to establish national bans on ownership by the general public of handguns, assault weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits, and weapons that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal-detection devices;"
 
I have on several of these forums, noticed that people who purport to be pro-gun do a bit of crawfishing when confronted with an uncomfortable situation like this letter. Keep in mind this is a young adult and if he sounds a bit threatening, it is his lack of finesse.

Still, when I see the mention of the possibility of a civil uprising to take our government back and so many get nervous and want to go on with things as they are, I know why we are in this situation. What do you fellas think the 2nd Ammendment was for? You cannot change what has happened by flapping jaws. There will have to be a civil war, and soon, or we have lost. The feds do not listen to us at all at this point. The fact is, we have probably already lost our country and no amount of talking is going to do any good anymore.

The federal government is only allowed by our Constitution to handle foriegn affars and interstate commerce. It is the commerce provision that they have used to take control of the country. The power structure layed out by the Constitution is the people, state, and then the feds. It is 180 degrees out of phase.

I know it is a scary thought, and I know we might have to sacrafice like our ancestors did, but what else can we do at this point? Think about it.
 
Crunker1337 said:

I don't think that having opinions against affirmative action makes one a racist. All he's saying is that he doesn't want foreigners to get free education while he pays for it. That's certainly not racist.

And even if he did make racist comments, he is free to do so, and the college would be in violation of its own policy to censor him.

His comments were not threatening or suggestive of mental problems in any manner, and that's what's in question right now; not his political ideals.

Bingo!

(I guess that makes me a racist...or crazy :scrutiny:)
 
To take this in a slightly different direction and paraphrase Mike Huckabee; if we value the first amendment then we better value the second amendment. Without the ability to protect our constitution from those who would like to do away with it we will lose it all.

I don't particularly like the way this young man chose to express his frustrations but I better not start thinking that I have some inherent right to silence him in that expression. When that mindset takes hold it's just a matter of time before someone decides they have the right to silence me.

On the other hand, if this individual doesn't like the way this private university is run he has the right to find another school. He doesn't have any reasonable expectation that the school will change to accommodate him.

DaveJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top