, , , , , , , ,

credit’ intellectual takeout

One of the primary tactics of the Left is lawfare.  They acknowledge the Constitution–and any law–only so far as those laws enable and support their political positions.  When the Supreme Court rules against them, as it did in the Heller (2008) decision, they not only verbally attack the court and the decision, they do everything they can to obstruct the implementation of any law with which they disagree.

Lawfare can take many forms.  Where guns are concerned, red states will more or less ignore the Second Amendment and continue to make firearm ownership, and particularly bearing arms, virtually impossible.  They do this because they know it will take years, perhaps decades, for lawsuits challenging their patently unconstitutional and totalitarian tactics to reach the Supreme Court, and when they do, it’s likely the Court won’t take the case anyway.  In the meantime, honest, law abiding citizens are imprisoned, financially ruined, and denied their fundamental rights.  But that’s not the only way Leftists pursue Americans that live by the Constitution, as Campus Reform reports:

credit: gunguytv

A teaching assistant at the University of Utah tried to create a ‘Second Amendment zone’ in a classroom, forcing students who legally carry to stand in a tiny, taped-off area during class.

Upon being alerted to the situation, the university promptly overruled the instructor and assigned them to non-teaching duties for the duration of the semester.

Here’s what the TA wrote:

“The psychological safety of their classmates and instructor.”  One wonders what else might endanger the psychological safety of such tender, special snowflakes.

Utah State Representative Karianne Lisonbee shared the document after a student provided her the classroom policy file, remarking in the post that she is ‘livid’ about the situation.

‘A University of Utah Professor doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights and University policy on free speech – which is disturbing enough,’ Lisonbee wrote. ‘But even more egregious, she is seeking to break state law and deprive students of their rights.

Utah law and university policy allow lawful concealed carry on campus, and as rational people know, concealed carry licensees are among the most psychologically stable, law-abiding people in the nation.  The university responded:

 University of Utah officials recently learned that a graduate teaching assistant included a statement in an undergraduate course syllabus that violated both state law and university policy. The statement has been removed from the syllabus and students in the class have been alerted to the error.”

The university forced an apology from the TA, who got “additional training.”  They’re not teaching this semester.

Imagine, gentle readers, what would have happened in a red state.  Actually, in those places, social justice rules, not the rule of law.  Only in blue states are individual rights routinely observed.  But this is not the only such instance in the news.  Victoria Snitsar at The College Fix, explains.

My jaw dropped recently as I read the nine-page syllabus for an online history class I enrolled in for the fall semester at the University of Kansas. Two full pages of the document include arguments against the Second Amendment and chides students who support the university’s concealed carry policy or take advantage of it.To be clear, this class is on the history of the Japanese Samurai and has nothing to do with U.S. history or the Second Amendment.

What’s more, Professor Eric Rath of the History and East Asian Studies departments also informs students in the syllabus: ‘With guns allowed on campus, I no longer feel safe having visitors in my office; so instead of in person office hours, I am available for consultation via email or Skype on the hours indicated above and by appointment. Should you wish to meet in person, the appointment will be at a secure or public location of my choosing, but not my office. Please read the statement about concealed weapons at the end of the syllabus.

The two-page statement includes data that aims to paint the use of guns in a negative light, details provisos of the policy at KU that allows students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus, and states “I request that you not bring firearms to class or wherever I am present.

Although you may be entitled by law to carry a gun, I urge you not to do so. … I do not want to worry about whether you might react by pulling a gun on me, or whether you might have an improperly secured weapon in your belt or bag,’ the syllabus states. ‘… I have seen students become uncontrollably angry because of something that has happened in the course—a disappointing grade, an allegation of academic misconduct, an uncomfortable topic, a controversial statement. If you do not carry a weapon, you cannot be tempted to use it in a moment of frustration.

Snitsar was disappointed and will probably not take the course from a man that would deny students their unalienable rights.  It’s interesting that since concealed carry on campus was instituted, the crime rate has declined:

KU Public Safety officials said crime on the Lawrence campus declined 13 percent from 2016 to 2017. In the first six months of permitted concealed guns on campus, there have been no criminal weapons violations,’ the Kansas City Star reported in March. ‘KU Public Safety attributes the drop in crime to steps the university took to improve campus security after the legalization of concealed carry.’

That’s one take. Or perhaps criminals intent on violence head to gun-free zones and tend to avoid places where they know people can defend themselves.

While Prof. Rath may be learned in his discipline, he apparently knows little about firearms, the military or police work:

His syllabus states: “If you choose to carry a gun, you have the ethical responsibility to obtain the necessary training to do so in a safe manner, even though Kansas law does not require it. In order to assess potentially dangerous situations accurately and use a firearm effectively, you need to complete extensive firearms training, such as that provided to military and law enforcement personnel. Without such training, constantly maintained, you are more likely to cause injury to yourself or an innocent person than to provide anyone with protection, including yourself.

As I’ve noted for years, the police, with very few exceptions, are not well trained in the use of their handguns, and tend to be even more poorly trained in long arms.  Most police are not good shots.  Military members not in a combat arms MOS receive only the most limited firearm training, and handgun training is generally not nearly as rigorous as rifle training.  The idea that anyone carrying a gun is more likely to cause damage to innocents than criminals has been so thoroughly debunked it’s barely worthy of mention.

This kind of panicky, irrational thinking is never attractive, but it is even less so in university teachers who are supposed to be capable of research-based reason.  Even so, university students of 21 or older are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights on more and more college campuses, and when they do, absolutely nothing happens.  When states adopted concealed carry, leftists predicted blood running as rivers in the streets, gunfights over minor disagreements, wholesale slaughter. None of that ever came to pass. When concealed carry was authorized on campuses, leftists hysterically predicated more of the same, and again, they’ve been entirely wrong, and crime rates have lessened.

The larger problem continues to be in K-12 schools, where anti-gun irrationality tends to be the norm. It’s horrifying, but most teachers, principals, administrators and school boards are willing to allow children and teachers to die rather than challenge or change progressive orthodoxy.

And the battle for freedom continues.