The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10, 2008, 07:50 PM   #1
triggerhappy2006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Location: peoples republic of new york
Posts: 451
Second Amendment Extremist View?

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?
__________________
"We make the voices go away"
triggerhappy2006 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 08:04 PM   #2
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
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.
KChen986 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 08:14 PM   #3
Dangerwing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
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.
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot.
Dangerwing is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:02 PM   #4
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
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]
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:24 PM   #5
Dangerwing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot.
Dangerwing is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:25 PM   #6
triggerhappy2006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Location: peoples republic of new york
Posts: 451
I walked out because the professor was getting emotional
Quote:
"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
__________________
"We make the voices go away"
triggerhappy2006 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:33 PM   #7
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
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
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:40 PM   #8
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
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.
Nnobby45 is online now  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:44 PM   #9
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
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
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 10:02 PM   #10
HuntAndFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO.
Posts: 580
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.
__________________
NRA Benefactor
MSSA Life Member
HuntAndFish is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 10:04 PM   #11
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
He doesn't have a right to browbeat you in class over your disagreement with those beliefs.
unless he has tenure......
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 10:34 PM   #12
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 207
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.
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
Ballenxj is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 11:41 PM   #13
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 11:59 PM   #14
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 12:36 AM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,214
So much depends on your point of view

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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 03:19 AM   #16
Yithian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 719
Did you ask him whether he prefered himself to be called a communist or a socialist?
__________________
Pondering the differences, terminally, between the V-Max and the A-Max.
Yithian is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 05:42 AM   #17
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
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
__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 09:11 AM   #18
Atticus Thraxx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2007
Location: Bay Area Ca.
Posts: 268
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.
__________________
"No Curling in the Squat Rack!"
Atticus Thraxx is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 10:03 AM   #19
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Some dumb kid did something similar to what you did
What's that "dumb" kid up to these days, Al?
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 10:41 AM   #20
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,307
Trick question....
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 11:09 AM   #21
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,000
My first +1 post ever ...

... 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.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 02:04 PM   #22
Seancass
Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2006
Location: Purdue
Posts: 75
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.
__________________
Ess Kay Ess
Seancass is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 02:51 PM   #23
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
Quote:
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.
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 03:50 PM   #24
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud Helms
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
Ballenxj is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 03:50 PM   #25
eric75
Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2006
Posts: 53
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.
eric75 is offline  
Reply

Tags
l&cr

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14611 seconds with 9 queries