PDA

View Full Version : Second Amendment Extremist View?


triggerhappy2006
October 10, 2008, 07:50 PM
Okay this really upset me. I was in my Social Problems Course and the professor was talking about gun control and the professor asked a portion of the class their beliefs on gun control, most of them said the thought only police and military should have them and they should be taken away from civilians. The professor asked me and I said that not only should it be our right but our duty as Americans to utilize all of our amendments to the best of our ability. The professor asked what I would do if the government banned all civilians from having guns and demanded that all gun owners turn in their weapons I replyed the usual, molon labe, from my cold dead hands, and my ammo first. The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan. The professor went on to say that some one who beliefs in the second amendment so strongly is essentially a terrorist. I was outraged so I got up and left the class and said only this "I am sorry our views conflict with each other but when you can discuss this in an objective manner I will be more than happy to return." I want to know what some other "well educated" people thought about this statement that "molon labe", "over my dead body", "from my cold dead hands" are extremist and terroristic views?

KChen986
October 10, 2008, 08:04 PM
Most professors have a liberal bent--think about it, they're in a school enviroment. A lot of things are rationalized through the theoretical, and most school campuses are huge bastions of safety/middle class america.

I doubt that most professors will be willing to stand up and physically fight when push comes to shove.

Dangerwing
October 10, 2008, 08:14 PM
Unfortunately, I think the problem is with our society's view of the word "terrorist". Really, what is a terrorist? During the revolutionary war, American troops hid behind cover, use quick-attack, hit and run tactics. All of that is common place today. Yet at the time, when the standard tactic was to get into lines 50 yards appart on an open field and lob musket balls at eachother til one side quit, these tactics were called "terrorism".

Your professor was kind of right. Many people would label you a terrorist. Im sure the Hajis fighting against our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq call us "Invaders" or "Conquerors" etc etc. They probably look at US troops the way we look at the enemy soldiers in the movie Red Dawn. People would label you a terrorist because that has become the popular word to call pretty much anyone we disagree with strongly. I believe your professor and much of society miss uses the word and calls people Terrorists that do no meet the definition.

Your professor was also kind of wrong. You would not be a terrorist. Neither are those who plant road-side bombs to kill US soldiers. They are enemy soldiers using the only means they have. The obviously cannot stand up to us in tranditional combat, so they are doing what they have to do to survive. The only difference between the "Minutemen" in American history and the "Terrorists" in the current day middle east is what they're fighting for.

My overall point is this - I think your Professor was thinking one of two things. 1) He was angry that you disagreed with his point of view thus threw out the popular buzz word/insult of the generation - Terrorist. He was trying to discredit you by associating you with a group that our society hates. or 2) He is a smart man that was trying to point out that a freedom fighter to one group of people is a terrorist to another group a people. If option 2 is correct, you got angry and left before he had a chance to make his point.

Don't take this post as an insult or agreement with the prof. I'll hand you loaded mags till you go down. Then I'll take over your sector of fire.

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2008, 09:02 PM
I have to disagree with your tactics. College is a time to stick your ground and exchange ideas. If you believe so strongly that it is every American's duty to exercise their rights, you should have stayed and exercised your First Amendment rights. After all, as the minority opinion, that right is there for you more than for anyone else in that classroom. Walking out appears childish and submits to majority opinion that you can not argue your point on their level. It allows them to make such accusations as they did without rebuttal, which in layman terms means they win.

Gun owners should be used to being cast in a negative light these days. Unfortunately, we rarely get an opportunity to represent ourselves in a positive light. Usually when the media cast stones at us, we are represented by some barely literate inbred high-school drop out they pulled out of a bog somewhere in Mississippi. Chances to represent yourself and your opinion are few and fair behind. College is about the only environment on earth where these opprotunities do present themselves on anything resembling a fairly regular basis. When the chance presents itself, every gun owner has a right and a responsibility to be ready and to voice their views.

There is a reason the Second Amendment comes after the First. Self-defense doesn't always involve a firearm. If you want to claim that you are ready to defend yourself, you have to be able to do so with more than a handgun. You have to be ideologically sound enough to make an intelligent argument and to present your ideas. Walking out is more than the waste of a good opportunity to present your views--it is the moral equivalent of claiming the high ground while cowering under the table as a pair of hoodlums ransacks your house.

Being misrepresented is something we have to deal with. There are lots of common misconceptions regarding guns and gun owners these days. Few have much to stand on. It wouldn't take much of a debate to expose these lies as the foolishness they are. As modern liberalism infects out education system, it is common for people to ignore the beginnings of our country. Few liberals want to acknowledge that the "shot heard round the world" was fired when the British attempted to confiscate arms. That this event was the catalyst that conceived our nation, and that our nation was born from a hail of lead musket balls in a cloud of gun powder smoke. Whether you call them freedom fighters, rebels, or terrorists, we owe a lot to those men. And it takes very little thought to clearly distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorists kill indiscriminately to inflict maximum psychological damage through fear. I doubt seriously if many IEDs were set off in the streets of Boston or Philadelphia. Most acts of terrorism--church burning, killing and raping of civilians, ect.--were conducted by the British, if you believe the history books.

I'll freely admit that I didn't make as much of my time in college as I could have. I have to mental capacity to have easily gotten my degree, but failed to do so because I placed my priorities in other things--like drinking and skiing. This is a mistake I'll have to live with. But looking back, one thing I am proud of was that during my experience as a junior Political Science major in the 2004 elections was that I embraced every opportunity to express my beliefs. All the time I have spent on these forums and elsewhere educating myself did not go to waste. And I assure you that more priceless than embarrassing a fellow student in front of the entire class, is turning the head and earning the attention and respect of a die-hard liberal professor.

You don't tuck tail and run when you're right. Good guys don't hide. The American spirit does not allow for integrity and morality to retreat in the face of majority opinion. That is what makes this country great. Everyone is guaranteed a voice. The Bill of Rights does not exist to guarantee the right of the majority to speak their views, the right of the majority to worship as they please or petition the government, or the right of the majority to keep and bear arms or be represented in court. Those rights exist for the minority voices. If you truly believe as I do in the duty to know and exercise your rights, next time you'll be as ready to use your First Amendment rights as you claim to be to use your Second Amendment rights.

[steps off soap box]

Dangerwing
October 10, 2008, 09:24 PM
And it takes very little thought to clearly distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

Very true, but I feel that very few people in today's society take the time to have that very little thought.

Terrorists kill indiscriminately to inflict maximum psychological damage through fear. I doubt seriously if many IEDs were set off in the streets of Boston or Philadelphia.

I guess my point here is that IED's are not a terroristic weapon. Yes, they do instill fear, but so do machineguns and artilery. Really, artilery is much more "indescriminate" than IED's since those firing the artilery cannot even see their target. 99% of IED's are "Command Detonated" - meaning there is a guy watching the kill zone that pushes a button or calls a phone number when there is a target in said kill zone. As a man that fought in Iraq and had several close calls with IED's, I can assure you, they are scary and deadly, but not at all indiscrimnate. They are weapons used to kill/wound specific individuals and destroy/damage specific equipment. For example, a Claymore mine like the one's our military uses, are just comercially made IED's.

Regardless, my point is not that early American Freedom fighters were Terrorists - my point is that the definition of a "terrorist", "terrorist act", and "terrorism" in general is often misunderstood, expanded, and sometimes even misused to simply ilicit an emotional response - very much like the word "Communist" or "Communism" was used in the 50's and 60's.

triggerhappy2006
October 10, 2008, 09:25 PM
I walked out because the professor was getting emotional
"I am sorry our views conflict with each other but when you can discuss this in an objective manner I will be more than happy to return." The professor started to say how gun owners are the reasons for crime and poverty and started to get rather aggressive about the topic, I feel I diffused a bad situation. I didn't yell or provoke the professor or run out of the room crying I just saw that it was getting out of hand and ended the situation

MrNiceGuy
October 10, 2008, 09:33 PM
dont be surprised if the professor makes some allegations against you to the campus enforcement.

many anti gun-nuts view anyone who owns a gun as a violent and murderous psychopath. Now that you've had a disagreement, and he knows you own a gun, he's probably literally scared of you right now

Nnobby45
October 10, 2008, 09:40 PM
I want to know what some other "well educated" people thought about this statement that "molon labe", "over my dead body", "from my cold dead hands" are extremist and terroristic views?


I think the reaction of the anti-gun audience, and especially the professor, was 100% predictable. Akin to sitting in the LSU section rooting for Alabama. You gave your professor a wide open shot at an easy target with the "molon labe", "cold dead fingers" stuff, even if you were right as far as we members of the choir are concerned.:cool:

MrNiceGuy
October 10, 2008, 09:44 PM
I think the reaction of the anti-gun audience, and especially the professor, was 100% predictable. Akin to sitting in the LSU section rooting for Alabama. You gave your professor a wide open shot at an easy target with the "molon labe", "cold dead fingers" stuff, even if you were right as far as we members of the choir are concerned.

exactly

why do you think he was going around the room?
because he was looking for you or someone like you to disagree with him.
he was picking a fight so to speak, and you gave him an open invitation


a college is not the place to have an open and honest debate.
your professor didnt want to have a discussion, he wanted someone to point his finger at

HuntAndFish
October 10, 2008, 10:02 PM
First, if one of my college professors had ever made me feel so uncomfortable by their behavior that I had to leave the class I would have reported it to the Dean of the College. I'm paying for that education and I want my money's worth.

Second, I agree with those here who have questioned the definition of "Terrorist". One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Third, I guess it would depend on how the gun rights were removed. If the second amendment was actually repealed through the proper mechanisms already available, then you (as a citizen) would either be compelled to turn them in, leave this society, or fight to overturn the government. Maybe at this point you are a terrorist. However, as long as the Second is a civil right and stated as such in the BoR, it needs to be respected as such. And it recently was by no less than the US Supreme Court. Until repeal, you are a civil rights activist.

Your professor has a right to his beliefs. He doesn't have a right to browbeat you in class over your disagreement with those beliefs.

ETA: Was he just baiting you attempting to get a better argument out of you? Could be. Go ask him before you go to the Dean.

MrNiceGuy
October 10, 2008, 10:04 PM
He doesn't have a right to browbeat you in class over your disagreement with those beliefs.

unless he has tenure......

Ballenxj
October 10, 2008, 10:34 PM
Sounds to me like your "professor" is an educated idiot. (The worse kind)
His comparison of second amendment proponents to terrorists was way off base. Why don't You ask him who's side he would have been on back in the mid 1700's when that silly band of terrorists stood up for their rights? I'd love to hear his answer to that one. :mad:
Anyway, Don't let this "Professor" get to you. Study the Constitution & Bill of Rights, as well as all things connected before you get back to him, but "do" get back to him. He sounds like he could use a little education. ;)
-Bruce

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2008, 11:41 PM
I guess my point here is that IED's are not a terroristic weapon. Yes, they do instill fear, but so do machineguns and artilery. Really, artilery is much more "indescriminate" than IED's since those firing the artilery cannot even see their target. 99% of IED's are "Command Detonated" - meaning there is a guy watching the kill zone that pushes a button or calls a phone number when there is a target in said kill zone. As a man that fought in Iraq and had several close calls with IED's, I can assure you, they are scary and deadly, but not at all indiscrimnate. They are weapons used to kill/wound specific individuals and destroy/damage specific equipment. For example, a Claymore mine like the one's our military uses, are just comercially made IED's.

Regardless, my point is not that early American Freedom fighters were Terrorists - my point is that the definition of a "terrorist", "terrorist act", and "terrorism" in general is often misunderstood, expanded, and sometimes even misused to simply ilicit an emotional response - very much like the word "Communist" or "Communism" was used in the 50's and 60's.

I guess IED was the wrong description for what I was thinking about. I was talking about 155 howitzer shells wired in the trunk of a car set to go off in a crowded market place and other such acts which are easily distinguished as acts of terrorism rather than attacks on legitimate military targets. I suppose it can be argued that the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly defined targets and a precise objective, so indiscriminate may not be their motive. Rather, I should rephrase it to include the intentional targeting of civilians and non-military targets to achieve a psychological response.

Before you ask, yes, I would propose that WWII style carpet bombing of residential areas is pretty close to outright terrorism, though perhaps necessary given the technology of the day. Minimizing collateral damage while achieving a strategic mission in WWII was much more difficult. The line, for me, becomes whether Dresden, for example, was bombed to achieve destruction of military targets or was done to intentionally target civilians for the purpose of inducing fear and reducing moral. My recollection of history is dim on this, but IIRC, Dresden was bombed for the factories it had, which are legitimate military targets. Civilian casualties then become collateral damage rather than primary targets, which is how I personally separate acts of terrorism from everything else.

Now maybe such accounts have be lost to history as the victors wrote it, but I don't recall hearing many attacks on civilian targets by Washington's army. I don't doubt that there were some incidents, but by and large, records I have read indicate such acts of terrorism were much more prevalent from the British.

I walked out because the professor was getting emotional

Please understand that this isn't personal for me. I mean no disrespect to you. But I say, let him get emotional. That's all his side of the debate usually has. Let him blather on with his rhetoric. It will be clearly embarrassing for him when he realizes that you are calmly presenting an argument based on fact while his argument becomes more desperate and emotional. Everyone will clearly see it as a lack of not only substance, but professionalism.

The number of things he can do to you for presenting an opinion when he opened the class to debate are limited. A failing grade, being dismissed from the classroom...none of this matters as much as the eyes you will open. And you will open eyes. I know because I've been there. If you let him vent he will reach a point where he can either admit defeat to retain the respect of his class, or kick you from the class/fail you, which everyone will see for what it is--childish and immature. Instead, you walked away. While not the case, it was probably taken as not only an admission of defeat, but of the appearance that you allowed emotions to get to you. Thus it was you who appeared childish and immature, and actions speak louder than words. Your parting shot means nothing in the wake of your retreat. It's like getting your butt stomped in front of your girl then talking smack to the guy that just lit your face up--its perceived as what it is--a weak and desperate attempt to save face.

Just like compliance is not consent in the case of rape, walking away is not diffusing the situation--it's merely avoiding conflict for the sake of avoiding confrontation. Some things need to be confronted. Patently false accusations and blatant lies are two such things.

If you're not going to stand up for yourself and your opinions in an open forum on a college campus every time some liberal blowhard gets emotional and tries to drown you out with the same tired rhetorical show of force, then I am afraid you're not going to stand up for yourself very often. And if that is the case, I have to ask, why are you there? This professor's tactics are standard operating procedure for his ilk. He was probably a hippy. He's used to feeling like the volume of his voice determines its validity. Common sense and reason may not always be the loudest voice, or the most popular choice, but sooner or later, someone has to make that choice and sound that voice. If not you, then who?

Al Norris
October 10, 2008, 11:59 PM
Way back in 1972 or so, I had this professor that made some statements similar to this. Some dumb kid did something similar to what you did TH2006. Only he didn't leave class.

After the Prof finished berating him, he calmly looked at the Prof and then the class, and said, "In April of 1775, General Gage ordered Col. Francis Smith to proceed to Concord, to seize and destroy the munitions stored by the militia. We know from history, that though outnumbered, the Minutemen beat back the British. All the way back to Boston. The minutemen were rebels and traitors to the Crown. These rebels became American Patriots, because we ultimately won the war."

"That sir, is the difference between you and I. You see a rebel, instead of an American Patriot. You see a moldy piece of parchment, whereas I see the embodiment of our hard fought rights."

That dumb kid did this for the entire semester. He was a thorn in the professors side. Got an A out of that class, he did.

The object, of course, is to stand up for what you believe.

44 AMP
October 11, 2008, 12:36 AM
And how you define your terms. Please note that I am not defending his point of view, but in his mind, your professor is entirely correct in his statements, because of how he defines his terms.

The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is correct. But only if you think being in the same category means being the same. Every US soldier, sailor, and airman who ever faced combat was willing to kill, and if necessary die for their beliefs. Every soldier, guerilla fighter and revolutionary of every nation is in that category, men committed to a cause, and willing to do what they deem necessary to see it through.
How about family men (and women) that would kill or die, if necessary to protect their families? They are as committed as it gets.
Does that make them all the same? Exactly the same? Not in my book. There are too many differences for me to think they are all the same, but perhaps, not to your professor. He might be one of those sad individuals that have never found anything in their lives (including their wives and children?) that they considered worth killing, or dying for. Perhaps you should ask him?

Another point of semantics is the term "gun owners". We normally think of that term to mean people like us, who own and keep guns and abide by the lawful conventions of society. But reduced to its broadest possible meaning, anyone who has a gun in their hands is, for the time they hold it, a "gun owner". Not in the usual legal sense, but in the physical sense that if you control something, for the time you control it, you "own" it.

So, using the broadest possible definition, Policemen, soldiers, fanatic Jihadists, sportsmen, Nazi death camp guards, and olympic target shooters, and anyone else who holds a gun for any reason, good or bad, are all gun owners, and apparently in your professors mind they are all equal. Perhaps you should ask him why he holds that attitude as well? Is it ethical for him to consider them all the same because of the tools they use?

As to the question of what you would do if the govt orders us to turn in our guns? Molon Labe, from my cold dead hands, etc., are emotionally charged phrases, and do convey the depth of our feelings, but a better answer (especially considering the audience) might be to calmy, in a rational manner explain that it would be a violation of your constitutionally guaranteed civil rights (note the phrasing), and that such a clear violation of the US Constitution (the highest law of our land) would mean that government no longer owns your allegience or your obiedence. And that it would be the duty of every citizen to resist such a thing with all necessary means.

Terrorist is a nebulous term, depending much on your point of view. My opinion is that the term is grossly overused.

Yithian
October 11, 2008, 03:19 AM
Did you ask him whether he prefered himself to be called a communist or a socialist?

WeedWacker
October 11, 2008, 05:42 AM
The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would have to say I agree with this point - to a certain extent. The insurgents who are of Iraqi descent are patriots, much like what we had back in late 18th century. They believe in their way of life and wish others to leave them alone. The only difference is we were not taxing them to death, treating them like slaves, or taking their products from them and naming our own price which they must agree with prior to the conflict. I have heard stories (probably mythical) of an insurgent nicknamed "Phantom." he was one of the Iraqi national insurgents who from all accounts merely wanted the presence of all foreign powers out of Iraq. He sniped at not only U.S. Marines but, from eyewitness accounts, also took down insurgents who used women and children as shields. He cared not for pure blood shed but for his country to be at peace and left alone by foreign powers. He was and as far as I know still is a patriot towards country and his fellow men. That is what we are as patriots. Those who would defend our freedom with our lives and would not surrender it without fighting tooth and nail. We as patriots are defined by the constitution as the militia, whose who defend as a last resort against tyranny, and IMHO both foreign and not just domestic. We are the foundation of this country as citizens and as such we are required to cherish our freedoms. For when we forget what it cost, it is easy to give up "freedom for security."

/rant

Sorry :o

Atticus Thraxx
October 11, 2008, 09:11 AM
Trigger pardon me for saying so but you may have missed an opportunity to educate your fellow students as well as your professor. While the "cold dead hands" is a nice sound bite, looks like you these folks might have benifited from a well thought out, eloquent response. Of course you might have "read" the room, saw it was pointless, and did the only thing you could. I'm just saying, don't pass up on a chance to get in a well reasoned and calm opinion. We need all the help we can get.

grymster2007
October 11, 2008, 10:03 AM
Some dumb kid did something similar to what you did

What's that "dumb" kid up to these days, Al?

Al Norris
October 11, 2008, 10:41 AM
Trick question.... :rolleyes:

Bud Helms
October 11, 2008, 11:09 AM
... goes to 44 AMP.

Good to have you on Staff, Gary.

There was a time here on TFL when thoughtful analysis like that was not uncommon.




One weapon in the "Culture War" is the language we use. Sloganology, mythical definitions, habitual misuse and partisan semantics all work their way into our daily language. Next thing you know, there is a acceptance, a colloquial "meaning" that simply isn't so.

Seancass
October 11, 2008, 02:04 PM
It looks like you lost the argument and did youself no favors. You used emotions and loaded phrases. the emotion is emphasised by storming out. This emotional outburst could make you appear like the "extremist" the prof portrayed you as. You should have stuck to logic with arguments such as "the criminals already have guns" or "to think that criminals would suddenly start obeying laws if you made a new gun law is literally crasy". Or use humor "well if somebody wants to kill me, i want to kill them back, and i want to have a bigger gun" etc. also, like 44 amp said, when he said you where like iraq soldiers, remind him you're also like american soldiers. You can only throw out so many canned phrases, think on your feet.


I doubt any of you classmates where swayed towards guns by this argument. some of them either have guns or family members that own guns and you want to be just another student who happens to have a gun(or 10). Not some crazy "extremist" gunman, just another student thinking with his head.

Silver Bullet
October 11, 2008, 02:51 PM
The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq

Pitiful analogy. By the professor’s logic, the Jews who were rounded up in Germany, Poland, etc., would be terrorists if they had fought back against the nazis.

Ballenxj
October 11, 2008, 03:50 PM
My first + 1 post ever...... goes to 44 AMP.

Good to have you on Staff, Gary.
That "was" very well spoken. triggerhappy2006 could have used the help of someone like Gary in class that day. :)
-Bruce

eric75
October 11, 2008, 03:50 PM
What the professors are doing in the name of academics is making me sick.

I liked the advice I read in an interview with J. Budziszewki for World Magazine. The topic was a book he wrote about defending a Christian belief system in a hostile academic setting. I think it also can be applied to this situation. "Rule one is 'speak up' ... Other rules are 'Be logical,' 'Be respectful,' 'Keep it brief,' 'Limit yourself to a single point,' and 'Remember you don't have to win.' ... ask 'Sir, I understand the insult, but what is the argument?'"

Don't let these people pull a fast one by resorting to feelings and slogans. As Americans who like to think, speak and act freely, it is critical that we communicate that our beliefs and opinions are supported by logical arguments.

Dewhitewolf
October 11, 2008, 05:25 PM
In the college environment, professors often take advantage of the fact that college students are oblivious, and "push" their political views. Students often don't question it because it comes from the mouth of an educated professor. I have seen this phenomonon happen many times myself.

Students hear the "good sense" argument from the professor, and if there are students that have an opposing view, they are often ill equipped to take on a well knowledgeable professor. In fact, professors often take advantage of someone by singling him out in front of class in an effort to make him look "wrong" or "extreme." Other students that share the opinion of the professor now have validation to their prejudice, because a professor is backing them up.

The problem is that it is easy for people to hate what they don't understand. Trying to "educate" your professor and classmates right then and there would probably have been an exercise in futility, only because you may not be prepared with sufficient research to counter his arguments, which he may have memorized. You may also not have as much debate experience as he has, so he is in the position of out maneuvering you.

In order to get through to people, you have to stay away from the strategy of proving people wrong. Generally, people don't want to admit they're wrong about anything, even in the face of irrefutable proof. Instead, focus on changing their opinions: start a club with like-minded students to promote awareness of 2nd Amendment issues; find a gun club to sponsor a "students' day at the range; have guest speakers come in and speak first hand about gun issues. And above all, shy away from the rhetoric ("from my cold dead hands"), which only serves to isolate you from the audience you're trying to win over.

Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, "If I make friends of my enemies, do I not in effect destroy them?"

SPUSCG
October 11, 2008, 05:31 PM
Ive known plenty of objective teachers who dont throw beliefs on people, and even some pro gun teachers. theres always some wackos though and it seems like you got one

Webleymkv
October 11, 2008, 05:48 PM
Webster says the following

ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective


So, could a tyrannical government that uses the terror instilled by the threat of punishment not be called terrorists themselves? Perhaps you should have asked the professor what he'd do if the government ordered him to relinquish all of his books or ordered him to commit some sort of atrocity. If he resists, does that make him a terrorist? I think he was using a rather loose definition and should've been called on it.

AZAK
October 12, 2008, 03:13 AM
I teach debate and one of the first lessons that I share with my students concerns the fact that almost all meaningful debate has an audience.

From your description, I would venture that your "teacher" was not looking for a "policy" debate, he was fishing for a reason to stand up on a soap box and spout his "well earned authority" to his audience, your class, at your expense. Or he could have been attempting to begin a reasonable debate. Only you, at that point, could choose which way you wished to respond. Which brings me to one of my favorite sayings, "Would you rather be a sage on the stage, or a guide on the side?"

Another of my day one lesson's concerning debate is that:
Debate does not equal belief.
Just because you believe strongly in something does not make it so for anyone else.

If you feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment, or any other topic for that matter, I would suggest that you take some time to learn about the skills necessary to become a successful debater. (At least if you want to discuss issues in any public forum.)

In my opinion, debating skills are some of the most important life skills that anyone can learn. And it does take time, and lots of practice, to become convincing and persuasive when arguing against a competent opponent.

Otherwise when you engage with someone, like you did, you will just come out looking like a kid in a sandbox throwing sand; and actually add to the validity of the other's argument against you and your position, to the audience. (And that really is the point isn't it? To have the audience persuaded that you have the better position. You likely are not going to change your mind, and neither is your "teacher".)

You asked for our opinions, and these are mine. Pretty easy to write down quickly, but takes a bit of time, effort and dedication to achieve.

Good Luck and Best Wishes

PT111
October 12, 2008, 06:05 AM
By walking out you admitted that the professor was right in front of the rest of the class. He may have baited you but you fell for it hook, line and sinker. You showed the rest of the class what a nut job gun owners are and made his point. :(

Ballenxj
October 12, 2008, 09:40 AM
By walking out you admitted that the professor was right in front of the rest of the class. He may have baited you but you fell for it hook, line and sinker. You showed the rest of the class what a nut job gun owners are and made his point.
Aren't You being a wee bit harsh on the OP here? That professor had many years of experience over his students, and I'm sure this has already been well rehearsed. In fact, I'd be willing to bet this is not the first time he has pulled this stunt.
The OP on the other hand, was totally unprepared for the unfolding drama this crafty professor laid on him.
SHAME on that professor for presenting his personal views at the students expense. :mad:
-Bruce

gcmk13
October 12, 2008, 10:13 AM
"I would remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice! And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Barry Goldwater

If this is like most sociology type classes, you can just show up to class, daydream for an hour (or check out all of the girls), get your A, and move on. It is completely irrelevent in the long run. I made the mistake of butting heads with a sociology professor for an entire semester. It turns out he liked it; the old saying about wrestling with the pig comes to mind. You won't hear me say this often, but I should have paid less attention to my studies and more attention to all of the girls in the class.

You're still young. Ignoring the trivial people in life wasn't a skill I learned until much later, but it's good to start working on it early.

I also second the post about learning debating skills. It is very important. I'm not sure that this is the place to start, though.

pogo2
October 12, 2008, 11:59 AM
I believe your strongest argument in this situation is to lump the Second Amendment together with all the other amendments, and take the position that a threat to any one amendment is a threat to them all. If the government can unilaterally void a single amendment, they can easily void them all. Then where are we? We have no Constitution left, and are living in a despotic state.

What would the Founding Fathers do in that situation? We saw what they would do - they did it in 1775 and kept at it until the despot was thrown off.

FyredUp
October 12, 2008, 02:27 PM
I had an Instructor at the tech college who was as left as left could get. The government was wrong, Viet Nam was wrong, baby killers, gun confiscation, you know the type. This too was a social problems class and we butted heads all semester with me barely getting C's. The last month of class I just said screw it. Wrote what SHE believed for my papers. Answered essay questions with HER opinion and voila I got an A.

My point? Insignificant people like that are a speed bump in your life. You can stand and fight with them and yet they still control your grade and sometimes it just isn't worth it. It can be like arguing with a child who just learned the word NO!, you know you are right but you will never get through. Go back to class, engage if you feel the need but be better prepared next time to debate and not throw out slogans that make you look like an extremist.

Good luck.

PT111
October 12, 2008, 02:53 PM
My point? Insignificant people like that are a speed bump in your life. You can stand and fight with them and yet they still control your grade and sometimes it just isn't worth it. It can be like arguing with a child who just learned the word NO!, you know you are right but you will never get through. Go back to class, engage if you feel the need but be better prepared next time to debate and not throw out slogans that make you look like an extremist.

I had a sociology prof that was extremely liberal and a doofuss on top of that. He becam very upset one day when we were talking about the SCOTUS and I said that most rulings were completely political and a 5-4 decision. Then he started talking about the terrible things done by the police during the 1968 march on Washington. One student asked him if he was there and the prof said No. The other student then siad well I was and your information is completely wrong. I thought we were all going to get thrown out that day. You just have to have a clear argument with facts. Slogans and don't cut it, that was the point of the prof but is what the OP tried to use.

BTW my apologies to any doofusses I may have offended by including this prof in with you.

Nnobby45
October 12, 2008, 08:25 PM
There are lots of tenured professors out their who advocate socialism for others, but probably never donated a dime to the needy, nor complained about their 100K, or more, per annum salary.:cool:

I suppose there's nothing wrong with throwing down the gauntlet, as long as one knows that's what he's doing and is prepared for the likely response, and has a good one of his own.;)

jarkaimaster
October 12, 2008, 08:25 PM
While I agree with your position, your reply (which I agree with, by the way) probably came across as TOO EXTREME. Next time, just say something like "I believe its our God-given right to defend ourselves from threats within and without--that means civilians get to use the 2nd Amendment. Feel, how you want (I feel the same way), but try to be a little more tactful--you won't make as many enemies that way.

Waitone
October 12, 2008, 09:08 PM
Next go'round ask the prof why is it government would be interested in confiscating all firearms.

An expected response would be for the chilren, stop the killing, or some other blather.

A brief historical response would be appropriate. List country, date of confiscation, and follow-on genocide. After a litany of say 5 examples conclude with a question such as, "What is my government planning that makes me a danger to it if I am armed?"

triggerhappy2006
October 12, 2008, 09:52 PM
I wasnt as concerned with proving the professor wrong or getting anyone to become pro gun as I was prevent the professor(who has a tendency to become very emotional and outraged and not drop things when someone doesnt agree) from turning the class period into an anti-gun debate because it was a fight i didnt think i could win( at the time). The professor will do the whole shpeal where they dont let you get a word in and then become very childish when you start to make a point. That and I dont want to do anything to endanger my potential agreement with the president of the university(i dropped him a letter asking to keep a gun in my car because i work in a bad area right after classes)

B.N.Real
October 12, 2008, 10:07 PM
Very sad to see a teacher with that kind of view.

And I know that he is not by himself in that view.

These people take the Constitution for granted because they are provided free of charge the freedom provided by the military people of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Ironically,these teachers support only one point of view about gun ownership.

That view which leads to a totalitarian state.

They should check their history books well.

It is usually the teachers who are the first people who are rounded up and shot to death when a dictatorship takes over a country.

DieHard06
October 12, 2008, 10:53 PM
Yeah, but their type of teachers aren't usually the ones rounded up. :rolleyes:

BillCA
October 13, 2008, 12:34 AM
Trigger,
This would have been a very good opportunity to show some thinking instead of emotional reaction.

I agree that the first argument should have been,
Any statute passed by congress which lies in opposition to the constitution, including the amendments, is null and void. Thus, such a statute has no force of law and attempts to enforce it are outside the authority of the government. It becomes, in essence, a crime committed by the government.

If, however, he indicates that a proper repeal of the amendment was performed, then there is a follow-up answer.
Should the 2nd amendment be wiped away, Congress and state legislatures would no longer have much reason to fear the people whom they are supposed to serve. As shown in the U.K., once people were disarmed, it took less than a year before it's legislative body proposed to cease trial-by-jury if the offense was punishiable by less than 4 years in prison. No doubt free speech would be abolished next here, along with warrants being required.

If a professor argues that the 2nd amendment only prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating firearms, then we have even more fun.

The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, via the 14th Amendment is necesary only because of a single, questionable decision. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) held that the bill of rights limitations applied only to the federal government and not to the states. So between 1833 and 1868, when the 14th was ratified (actually longer than that) you could be arrested by local or state authorities for speaking your mind on a street corner. In fact, many people were so arrested, especially for unpopular ideas or sentiments.

It wasn't until the early 20th Century that "civil rights" were forced onto the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court.

Further, the decisions in Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in Presser 116 U.S. 252 (1886), were built on the framework of Barron v Baltimore, saying that the 2nd Amendment only restricted Congress, not the states.

Yithian
October 13, 2008, 05:29 PM
I think you did just fine Trigger.

In the end, the teacher was the one confrontational.
You, the one pro-gun, were the one that walked away.

Besides...
What does it matter when you walk away from an idiot.

ConfuseUs
October 14, 2008, 01:39 AM
I said that not only should it be our right but our duty as Americans to utilize all of our amendments to the best of our ability. The professor asked what I would do if the government banned all civilians from having guns and demanded that all gun owners turn in their weapons I replyed the usual, molon labe, from my cold dead hands, and my ammo first.

Well, it doesn't hurt to start out with civil disobedience and waiting for the mid-term elections you know. Saves everyone a lot of trouble if things work out the way they should. Did you mention civil disobedience at all? "Molon Labe" is for when all the other options have been exhausted because it's the worst option.

The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also makes you no different from the men and women who are fighting on our side in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The professor went on to say that some one who beliefs in the second amendment so strongly is essentially a terrorist.

That's hardly the case, unless you are engaging in political assassinations, deliberately targeting civilian populations who don't agree with you, or engaging in high profile violence intended to publicize your cause. The prof would have a point if lots of anti-gun activists/politicians had been assassinated and there were lots of car bombings in the districts of politicians who support gun control. This isn't going on so your prof needs to study the word "terrorist" again. I can name numerous anti-gun activists who have agitated vehemently against gun ownership for decades on end in the US. They are safe from their sworn enemies IMHO.

I was outraged so I got up and left the class and said only this "I am sorry our views conflict with each other but when you can discuss this in an objective manner I will be more than happy to return." I want to know what some other "well educated" people thought about this statement that "molon labe", "over my dead body", "from my cold dead hands" are extremist and terroristic views?

Just because Captain Hyperbole is running the class and you don't agree with him doesn't mean YOU can't objectively make your case to him and the class even if he won't be objective himself. Furthermore, if the professor indulges in exaggeration, mockery, and demonization too much he'll wreck whatever argument he has in the first place. The hard part is not getting so whizzed off at the prof that you can't be rational yourself.

2nd Amendment activism should be on a spectrum. If guns were thoroughly banned it would be better to try to undo the damage using political and legal action first because the casus belli for the pro-gun side is stronger if the government acts like your professor wants and drops JDAMs on the houses of some pro-gun activists who haven't done anything violent to further their beliefs.

Ballenxj
October 14, 2008, 09:27 AM
All very good points ConfuseUs. Actually, That wasn't confusing at all. :)
-Bruce

2Old2Change
October 14, 2008, 09:35 AM
Given the state you presently reside in, this type thinking goes along with the territory, dontcha think?
I'd think if you were enrolled in a mid-west or southern university, the staff along with the students, would have a more liberal point of view. Just my humble thoughts.

JKHolman
October 14, 2008, 11:11 AM
To set a couple of things straight (I am trying to get this out before the thread is shut down).

An artillery piece is an article of a military fighting unit, and designed for utilization in that capacity. Because it is necessary to train a crew of soldiers to operate a cannon, and other personnel for fire support (i.e., forward observers, transport beds, fire-control), it is rarely used in an act of terrorism. Artillery pieces and explosive devices are two very different things. Artillery fire is used in the capacity of a war-situation under the direction and control a military authority. Terror tactics (the fire-bombing of Dresden) and acts of terrorism (the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) are two different things.
para. One of the reasons General Washington insisted on a standing army during the War of Independence was to help in legitimizing the young republic. He knew that it would take more than a collection of dissidents firing behind trees to convince the French that we were a nation to be reckoned. While the minutemen of New England were arguably terrorists, they were operating under the auspice of State (colonial) direction. The Declaration of Independence and the mustering of troops into the Continental Army solidified their status as legitimate combatants. A captured soldier of a national army is entitled to civil protection, sound treatment and the safeguarding of his well being. A terrorist is a criminal and not entitled to the guarentees under the rules of war.

- JKHolman

Major Dave (retired)
October 14, 2008, 11:42 AM
Triggerhappy,
When I was a prison guard in Texas, an inmate saw my military belt buckle, and wanted to know if I had ever killed anyone in a war. I told him that in my two tours in Vietnam, I had killed several enemy soldiers. To which he gleefully replied, "Then you are a murderer, the same as me!"

I told him that there was no equivalency when comparing someone who kills a little old lady for her Social Security check, so he can buy drugs, and a soldier fighting for freedom for citizens of a foreign country. He couldn't see the difference!

The criminal justifies his self-serving violence, and considers it to be the same as protecting others and trying to ensure their freedom.The professor equates the soldier to the terrorist. Faulty logic from the criminal and the professor.

Another Texas inmate gave me a clear insight into the criminal attitude toward gun control. It was the year Texas Governor Ann Richards (D) was approached about the possible enactment of Concealed Carry laws for the citizens of Texas. She said if the legislature passed such laws, she would veto it. She also refused to allow a non-binding referendum to be placed on the ballot of the upcoming elections.

Since the issue of CC was getting so much news media coverage, I knew the inmates were seeing it discussed on the TV's in their dayrooms, so I started taking a little opinion poll among the inmates about the subject. None of the inmates liked the idea of armed citizens, and one of them summed it up with this statement:

"It ain't no fun to hunt when the rabbit's got a gun!!!"

To a man (I must have discussed the issue with 30 or 40 inmates), they all said they would continue to carry guns when they were released from prison, even though they would be guilty of "Felon In Possession Of A Firearm", a felony crime punishable with a 5 to 20 year prison sentence. They all said they needed to carry a firearm to protect themselves - the same reason a law-abiding citizen wants to carry!

To summarize, the criminal:
1) Intends to keep his guns
2) Wants "the rabbits" to be helpless (disarmed)

These are not theories, they come from face-to-face conversations with actual convicted felons in a medium security prison.

P.S. Ann Richards lost her re-election bid - she was defeated by George W somebody!!! He encouraged the Texas legislature to pass a CC law, which they did, and he promptly signed it. Now, about 300,000* Texas "rabbits got guns", and violent crime has been reduced (murder down 52%, rape down 22%).

*These are not exact figures.

To prepare for the professors next attempt to humiliate you, go to these web sites:

www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm
www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup060100

You can also do a google search for rising crime rates in Britain, and Australia, due to gun bans. Violent crime against homeowners has skyrocketed in both countries as a result. Also, search for stats on Washington DC crime rates being the highest in the nation due to gun bans.

In short, in only about half an hour on the internet, you should be able to discover and print out a ream of info discrediting gun bans. Give all members of your class a copy of 3 or 4 of these internet articles, and the professor will have very little rebuttal available - other than typical liberal emotional panic and fear mongering, IMHO

MJRW
October 14, 2008, 02:04 PM
It wouldn't have been incorrect of you to tell him that he's basically ambushed you with an argument and offer that if he would like to discuss this, you'd be more than happy to with a bit of time to prepare, organize, and reference.

LouPran
October 14, 2008, 02:15 PM
Sounds to me like that professor has no business teaching anything related to the Constitution in college or high school .

Musketeer
October 14, 2008, 02:24 PM
SUNY school?

Never surrender to such a moron. You leave the class and he won, not in your eyes and you could care less about his eyes but in the eyes of those whose brains are full of mush and know no better.

You left, he stayed, he must be right. That is how your classmates who know no better will see it.

I went to a fairly conservative school. Engineers, pilots and a very large AF ROTC program (just behind that fancy school in CO). Still we had our share of fruit loops in the humanities department. One sociology and history prof was a WWII vet from the Pacific and had the more "practical" mindset. His history final had a question which was "Your professor feels the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justified, give two reasons he gave in class."

Then there was the PETA fanatic who also considered the Swiss the ultimate pinnacle of society because "they are non-violent and always neutral." Still I never missed one of his philosophy classes and:

made a point of wearing an NRA shirt,

explained to him why the Swiss Guard for the Vatican were mercenaries considered to bloodthirsty by the rest of the world to use and were therefore forbidden working for anyone but the Vatican and as guards,

why it is easy to be neutral at the top of a mountain,

the mandatory military service in Switzerland,

the presence of a fully automatic weapon in the home of every Swiss male between 18 and 42,

that the financial contribution to conservation in this nation by hunters far outweighs that of those who supposedly are trying to save said animals.

that only in African nations which have established controlled harvesting of game do such animals thrive thanks to the revenue they generate and the benefit they become to the population.

on and on.

I NEVER walked out. Winning in his eyes or yours is not important. Winning in the eyes of the undecided or those who are open to reason IS important.

As far as his calling you a terrorist, I would tell him that you are going to report that statement to the administration, the NRA and the media, and any alumni groups you can contact. A full apology from him in front of the class is warranted. what is more:

The professor said that I would kill and die for my beliefs makes me the same as those we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and what exactly are our troops killing and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan if not our BELIEFS?

bclark1
October 14, 2008, 02:44 PM
The professor is a problem, as are most. I'm tempted to refer to a scene from a recent movie as to the state of academia, but it's inseperable from the movie's political message, so I'll refrain.

In any case, there is another problem that the gun community regularly fails to identify. It's the PR angle. It's easier to convince a reasonable non-shooter that 2A advocates are extremists, than to convince the same person that anti-gunners are extremist. That's because 2A advocates must necessarily refuse to compromise, recognizing the gradual erosion that will eventually result in the extinction of gun rights. Time is on the side of anti-gunners, and each successive generation, they can convince the increasing numbers of non-shooters that their proposed restrictions and and limitations are reasonable and serve noble purposes, and opposing them is thus unreasonable.

Arguing won't work. It takes too much time, too much thought, too much effort, on behalf of an otherwise apathetic person to understand the point of view of the 2A advocate.

But you can help. Get people out shooting. Make new shooters, or at least show anti-2A folks that guns don't turn them into maniacs or create their own accidents. Show people that the existing restrictions are nonsensical and ineffective. And explain to them the need to avoid making small concessions, as history shows that it's a gradual effort to whittle gun rights down to nothing. Exposure and understanding are the only hopes to win the PR war, which is already critically important only going to get more important in the future.

obxned
October 14, 2008, 05:24 PM
Anyone who is out to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights by poisoning young minds, even if by only 1 amendment, is truely a terrorist.