Posted on 05/02/2013 4:59:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: Campus liberals who crave free stuff can find it on www.letterstoayoungprogressive.com.
Not all liberals are created equal. Some make an occasional stupid remark. Others have the capacity to make a lot of stupid remarks without reloading. An example of the latter is my boss, UNC Chancellor Thomas Ross. As a former Professor of Public Law and Government, he cannot be accused of mere bias when he makes demonstrably false statements about matters of public policy. Instead, the public must recognize that he is not just biased but also grossly incompetent. Because his incompetence threatens the safety of all people who come to UNC campuses, including small children, he should be replaced immediately.
Ross recently made a public statement in response to new NC House legislation that would ease restrictions on concealed carry (CCW) permits on our college campuses. One change in the CCW law would allow the permit holder to keep a weapon in the trunk of his car while on university property. Although the bill does not fully remove all campus restrictions on permit holders, Ross had the audacity to say the following:
“We have an obligation to provide a safe environment for our students and employees, and every UNC campus has a trained police force charged with promoting the safety of all people who come onto our campuses. All UNC Chancellors and Chiefs of Police believe allowing guns on campus would increase the risk to public safety and hamper our ability to protect not only our students, staff ,and faculty, but also campus visitors, including parents, siblings of students, and summer camp participants. Vehicle break-ins are one of the leading crimes on college campuses, and even guns brought lawfully onto campus, as contemplated by this bill, could fall into the wrong hands and result in serious injury or death."
We do indeed have an obligation to provide a safe environment for students and employees. That is why we need to relax totalitarian policies that selectively violate the Second Amendment by stripping the rights of law abiding adult students to protect themselves and others by carrying a concealed weapon. They should not be sitting ducks just because they chose to further their education on campuses made dangerous by progressive ideology.
Sixteen refereed publications show that CCW laws reduce violence. Zero refereed publications show that they increase violence. In other words, the laws are good for the public. Shouldn't Tom Ross, a former Professor of Public Law, know what laws are good for the public? Of course, Ross probably does know the research but refuses to share it with the public. In other words, he does not want others to conceal weapons while he conceals the truth. It elevates hypocrisy to a Zen art when a university system president decides to lead by feigning ignorance and suppressing his knowledge of academic research.
Students should not be made vulnerable to rape in order to preserve the ideological purity of overpaid public servants. Of course, the self-serving propagandist has no real interest in serving the public.
While we are on the subject of rape, all university Police Chiefs believe that most campus rape accusations are false. But they won't say that because college campuses are the most politically charged workplaces in America. Put simply, a university police chief will lose his job if he speaks his mind. And that is relevant to the present debate. Many UNC law enforcement officers support the right to carry on campus. I spoke to one last night and he was simply aghast at Ross' statement. But he knows that anyone who opposes Ross will lose his job. Clearly, Ross knows he does not have the unanimous support of the campus law enforcement community. He is simply misleading the public that pays his salary.
I'm glad Ross brought children into the debate. Summer camp participants need protection, too. If the data show that CCW laws reduce crime then we must take the data seriously. Other than having homosexual camp leaders in the Boy Scouts, I can't imagine a better way to protect young campers than having capable guardians with CCW permits. When Ross plays the summer camp card, he is begging the question. He simply assumes CCW laws increase crime or, more accurately, assumes we are ignorant of the fact that they decrease crime.
Now is a good time to recall that a few years ago our campus hosted the rapper Ludicris who sang about shooting b*tches and hoes with his 9mm. In fact, he was paid $130,000 to sing about killing b*tches and hoes. Surely, we can let CCW permit holders on campus for free. Research shows that they seldom shoot their b*tches.
I am also glad Ross brought up burglary. Break-ins do occur on campus. But that is no reason to ban guns from campus. Burglary is one of the crimes reduced by having CCW laws. It cannot be used as an excuse to negate CCW laws on campus. That would be like killing both your parents and asking the court to show you mercy because you are an orphan. If we allowed CCW laws to be fully operative on campus, those burglars would be far more likely to be apprehended, convicted, and imprisoned. Then crime would go down and Ross would probably issue a statement lamenting the fact that "so many people are in prison despite the fact that crime is down."
But Ross continues his mendacity – and I'll respond, after you read the following:
“In addition, a number of UNC campuses house early college high schools, middle schools, or summer camps for younger children. The presence of these young people further heightens our concerns about the safety risks that come with guns getting into the wrong hands. Moreover, when responding to an armed robbery or active shooter incident, our officers would often be hard pressed to distinguish between a criminal suspect and well-intentioned bystanders with weapons drawn, particularly in the heat of the moment. The potential for tragedy far outweighs any potential benefit or convenience to concealed-carry permit holders. We encourage the General Assembly to remove the provision that would allow guns to be brought onto UNC and other college and university campuses.”
Children should not be used as human political shields unless the cause is liberal. I mean, liberals have always cared more about children. That's why they abort them by the millions. They don't want them to be born into a world where they could get shot at a UNC summer camp because some Tea Bagger forgot to lock his Glock in the glove box of his Ford F150. Seriously, Tom Ross, if you cared about children, you would shut down all the UNC Women's Centers that “center” on pro-abortion politics. And, while you’re at it, get your anti-gun laws off my body!
Shoot outs last a really long time. In fact, the average shootout takes about an hour, which is long enough for most UNC police officers to finish eating their donuts, flirting with coeds, and finally arrive at the scene of the crime. And then its mayhem! Barney Fife can't tell the good guy from the bad guy. He's shaking like a suspected Christian in a UNC student conduct hearing! (Sarcasm = off. Now back to reality).
As a professor who teaches criminal law, I use hypotheticals all the time. But they need to be at least somewhat realistic in order to be persuasive. When the police are not around and a permit holder encounters a shooter the incident is typically over in seconds and long before the UNC officer finishes writing a traffic ticket in order to raise money for the new Gay and Lesbian Resource Center.
But Ross is right when he says that the current controversy involves an important trade off. He is willing to trade the safety of students in exchange for preserving the dreams of children. Of course, I'm talking about the children who teach at universities and refuse to grow up and face the reality that we live in a fallen world where utopia is impossible and guns are necessary.
Bravo Mike Adams!
Sometimes I get the feeling Mr. Adams has a self-destructive streak. I’m not sure if calling your boss out in a public forum is an act of utmost courage or professional suicide. But whatever the motive — conscious or subconscious — I agree with what he says and respect the zeal with which he says it.
“Sometimes I get the feeling Mr. Adams has a self-destructive streak. I’m not sure if calling your boss out in a public forum is an act of utmost courage or professional suicide. But whatever the motive — conscious or subconscious — I agree with what he says and respect the zeal with which he says it.”
Me too. It just seemed like Mr. Adams has reached his breaking point and feels these things must be said—and to hell with the consequences!&
Mike Adams is a tenured professor. There is little his boss can do to him.
However, his chances for advancement would be limited; but as a conservative, they already are. I’m sure he knows this.
My husband kept his political thoughts to himself until he got tenure.
a) Apparently he’s got cojones the size of bowling balls
b) He’s got tenure - that means they can’t fire him outright, at least not easily. They can do all sorts of piddly stuff to make his life miserable, but in order to terminate him they’d have to go through such incredible contortions that everyone would know his dismissal was contrived, and was motivated by political considerations. So much for a university as a place where freedom of thought reigns!
The more Adams pushes the envelope, the more heads explode in the UNC system, and the closer those in charge get to revealing the absence of any real diversity of thought on most college campuses.
If anybody has a list of references to these "sixteen refereed publications," I'd like to have it.
Shoot outs last a really long time. In fact, the average shootout takes about an hour, which is long enough for most UNC police officers to finish eating their donuts, flirting with coeds, and finally arrive at the scene of the crime. And then its mayhem!
Uh, no. He forgot the "wait for backup" part. If there's active shooting going on, union work rules in the name of "officer safety" forbid a single officer from charging into a gunfight alone. They'll wait for the SWAT team.
Sixteen refereed publications show that CCW laws reduce violence. Zero refereed publications show that they increase violence. In other words, the laws are good for the public. Shouldn't Tom Ross, a former Professor of Public Law, know what laws are good for the public? Of course, Ross probably does know the research but refuses to share it with the public. In other words, he does not want others to conceal weapons while he conceals the truth. It elevates hypocrisy to a Zen art when a university system president decides to lead by feigning ignorance and suppressing his knowledge of academic research.
What are you smoking? I don’t dispute what he said; I simply want the references for use elsewhere.
For a tenured professor, it is neither (and this is actually the first use of tenure I have seen in ages that is appropriate to its purpose of promoting an unpopular truth). What Adams is doing here is calling out Mr. Ross. You see, Mr. Adams does not understand liberals all that well. From the crux of the article:
Liberals know very well how easy it is to cook up a dishonest study, as they do it themselves "for the public good" all the time. For them, reality is a matter of social agreement, and in Mr. Ross' world, that agreement is decidedly tyrannical; they don't want those 'dirty little people' having any weapons because they might be after their ill-gotten goods, having gorged themselves on the public for way too long (and they know it). Hence, upon being confronted with said papers, he would discount their veracity as more of the same. It's the same projected equivalency we see from liberals all the time. They expect us to take it.
So what I see Mr. Adams doing is calling out Mr. Ross publicly. He wants to confront him with the data. It's high time, and we badly need more of it. I confront Marxist professors all the time with the condition of my land, because it proves that restoring land to purely native species is possible, but it takes a LOT of work only a private landowner can do. As long as there isn't a long list of peer reviewed papers saying as much (and guess who controls access to those), they can pretend I don't exist. I wish I had his standing, but I don't.
Adams has been pretty much immunized for calling out his boss...they already tried to get rid of him for his political views and failed in court.
You can start looking here.
Thx. I’m going to dowload them all so that I can blast them at my idiot liberal friends upon occasion.
Make no mistake; I vehemently support Mike Adams’ work. But knowing how vengeful and petty the “tolerant” Left is, I fear for him. I’d hate to see him ruined for speaking truth to hate.
He, apparently, has no such qualms.
Of that I had no doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.