For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor. [More]Paula Anderson doesn't even want to let us talk about it? This is a "communications professor"? What is that, some kind of Orwellian sick joke?
I wonder if she realizes the implications of using police state tactics to close that door?
Someone ought to tell her.
And Wahlberg should have told his inquisitioners to speak to his attorney. I hope they end up doing so, along with a certain miserable Marxist sow.
[Via JD]
UPDATE:
Mike's trying to get me in trouble.
I guess I deflected that.
Oh, and this was the link I included.
Me oh my--the trouble us boys get ourselves into...
"'I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,' Wahlberg said, 'but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name.'"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to bring attention to this. When you go to the gas station and fill up, do you give out your name and address? How about at WalMart? The grocery store?
Folks, if you're giving out your name and address, and this is being turned over to a government entity along with information about your purchase, you're "registered". I don't care what is your argument, that is registration.
The only time any US resident is free from gun registration is in the course of a private sale. The "gun show loophole" is actually a liberty gap in what is otherwise total registration.
The excerpt above exemplifies abuse of that information. The only counterargument of which I am aware is the 73 convictions in 2006 (out of tens of millions of gun owners) resulting from NICS checks. This is why it is incumbent on every freedom-loving citizen to oppose worthless and expensive record-keeping mandates in every corner of this nation.
We can start by agreeing that no record older than five years should be retained. Personally, I would prefer no records, other than what businesses need to communicate with profitable customers--and this is private data anyway.
Thing is TJP, we could do everything NICS does and have no records at all if BIDS were something gun owners would get behind. See WoG's link list in the sidebar if you don't know what I'm referring to. Of course, if we could get gun owners behind it enough to pass that, we'd have enough support to just knock off the foolishness altogether.
ReplyDeleteSent a message to the "sow" as you so aptly put it.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see if she responds. Somehow, I doubt the Police here where I live will be interested if she wants to call them. :)
You know, if I didn't dislike her politics and tactics so much, I'd almost feel sorry for her when she gets in on Monday and checks her email. If it hasn't filled up by then I'll be quite surprised.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I think I'd like to see her face. ;)
Laughing very hard at Mike's email. If MV is ever in the Dallas area, the beer is on me.
David and TJP, what the hell happened to "shall not be infringed"????? Both of you seem to advocate a form of checks and/or registration. Governmental schooling and the media propaganda have both done their job rather well, after all, its for "the greater good". The messiah, chuckie, and hillary can smile tonight.
ReplyDeleteHere in the great state of Connecticut we have no 'formal' registration. We DO have four copies of a DPS form that you sign after clearing NICS: one the store keeps, one you keep, one goes to the DPS, and one to your local cops. 'Informal Registration' maybe??
ReplyDeleteI live right up the road from CCSU and though I am incredibly disgusted with the behavior of this professor, insulting the animal that produces tasty bacon by comparing it to her is just too much. How can I ever eat bacon again??
I'll be sending an email of my own.
ReplyDeleteRather than sending an email to Paula Anderson, send one to her Department Chairman. It doesn't sound like she is tenured or regular faculty (not listed in Communications Dept).
ReplyDeleteThe Department Chairman is Prof. Serafin Mendez-Mendez and his email is mendez@ccsu.edu.
No department head wants bad press for his department caused by some temp faculty member.
No, anon, and if you'd read prior posts I've made on this you'd know that I don't want any prior restraints.
ReplyDeleteThat said, we have prior restraint. BIDS would eliminate a record being kept of gun purchases, so it would actually reduce the amount of infringement. I offer it to those who sneer at SNBI and take the incrementalist position, basically, "OK, you say you believe in incremental steps, here's one for you."
That none have taken up advocacy of it I believe tells us something.
Anon @ 6:48:
ReplyDeleteThis is my incremental approach suggestion:
"We can start by agreeing that no record older than five years should be retained."
This is my actual opinion on the matter:
"Personally, I would prefer no records, other than what businesses need to communicate with profitable customers..."
No government entity keeps records here, though I'd want private businesses to have room to retain records of good customers. Since dealers' First Amendment rights are violated by advertising bans, I think it's important that a record-keeping, er, "ban" exclude privately-owned businesses.
I believe that the current system is abused more than it is used, whether for purposes of intimidation, arresting people's guns, or using paperwork violations to force gun shops to make a quitclaim on their business. (Now ask me about federal licensure! Just kidding, I think it's crap.)
--
David,
I have read about BIDS before. Here are some of my thoughts:
* It hinges on a gun buyer's state ID. (Think about this problem in particular; it's a big one.)
* Who maintains the records, and what is the latency when a change is introduced?
* Who decides which records are kept? The definition of a prohibited person varies by state.
* Record-keeping compliance with existing gun rationing schemes.
* Various technical problems; e.g. collisions; deprecation of encryption methods as they become weaker; destruction of obsolete data; performance issues; key distribution; misunderstandings about how the technology works and how it doesn't.
I hate to dump on someone's idea--they've obviously worked very hard on it--but I'm more than a bit cynical about solutions where the process is:
1. Problem.
2. (unspecified computer magic happens here)
3. Solution!
I'm cynical because of things like the federal law that requires archiving of all electronic communication for use in federal cases, including methods using proprietary protocols which are ostensibly protected by the DMCA (a federal law). Or the federal law that requires computers to filter pornographic and obscene images--where a panel of human judges can't even agree on that--but your desktop PC is supposed to do it unfailingly. (The first person to write a program that recognizes boobs will be a trillionaire.) Or the proposed law to modify the DHCP protocol (a de facto standard where participation is voluntary, and is international in scope) to include useful information that could only be gained by psychic powers.
Perhaps we should try my new system: "NICHTS". It doesn't really do anything useful, but neither does the competition!
I don't think there's a chance in hell those interested in maintaining the status quo as a beach head from which to mount further incursions are going to give up an inch of ground unless there is a credible "or else" to be considered. That said, there are those who would tell us such extreme judgments on my part are are not pragmatic, that the opposition (I don't know if they call them "the enemy") made his gains through incremental politics, and that this is where we need to mount our offensives.
ReplyDeleteSo I offer this as an example of a potential politically incremental gain that would do everything NRA appears on the surface to want, giving an illusion that bad guys are being stopped from buying guns.
This will not stop bad guys every bit as much as NICS won't. And the main reason I offer it is because those who throw out labels like "principles freak" ridicule the system I propose: SNBI.
The answer is not to be found in government that has every intention of enslaving the citizen body with the intent of disarming the population.
ReplyDeleteRemove the federal government as the nanny of all the states. Going back to pre 1968 times so we are no longer under living under Hitler's 1938 gun laws.
All we are doing if we are going to be honest with ourselves. Is we are just bidding time in the hope of waking up other people so we can defend ourselves from the federal government suspending the Constitutional rights of the citizens. Then installing a new form of government that looks and smells like Marxist.
All the problems we have are by far and large because the federal government is not acting as it was designed to under the Constitution. We need to get our republic back and move forward having learned from our mistakes.
I have no disagreement on the efficacy of either system, but BIDS won't protect anyone's privacy any better than NICS; which is the raison d'être for the new system.
ReplyDeleteBoth require verification of a government-issued identification of the buyer. If it can be illegally retained after a NICS check, it can be illegally retained after a BIDS check.
Thanks for the department head email, jpr. I think cc:ing the college president is called for as well. Comrade Anderson didn't hesitate to go to the highest authority. We shouldn't either.
ReplyDelete