Campus RKBA Roundup #5

Back in full force, you regulars! Neither snow, cold, disappointing elections, nor crappy internet connections will prevent me from delivering to you:

The Mad Hatter's
Campus RKBA Roundup #5:

The "please don't beat me for being late" edition.

Now, you're probably wondering, "Where does the Mad Hatter get all his stuff?" All will be revealed in good time. But not in this edition.

But suffice it to say, I have my sources. And you can feel free to contribute your own findings by emailing them to me at vol_907@bitemycrank.com (replace "bitemycrank.com" with "yahoo.de"). I'll give you the hat tip...and if I haven't posted a reciprocal link to your blog yet, I'll do that, too.

But enough self-promotion. Let's get down to finding out what I learned about what America's supposedly best and brightest are saying about a certain Amendment to our Bill of Rights.


This comes hot off the wire--thanks to the vigilant folks over at KeepandBearArms.org. A debate was held over at Harvard between Professor Mark Tushnet and historian Saul Cornell "over the challenges and possibilities for progressive gun control policy."

Basically, you have these two lefties arguing among themselves over whether or not it's worth liberals' time to address gun control policies in a manner that would make everyone happy.

Interesting how, in the 90s, "progressives" were all about getting as many anti-gun initiatives passed as they could. Now, the focus seems to be towards taking more of the middle ground.

Big government isn't really that interested in the people's happiness. It's interested in staying in power. That's why your best friend is the Constitution. Correction: your best friend in any case is God (He's got the best answers), but not everyone wants to hear that.


Baylor University: another article responding to the Amish school shooting, calling again for less violence, once again thinks the root of the problem has been found:

These preventative measures are a good start and will probably deter some potential violence, but they ignore the bigger issue at hand: guns.

I am astounded at the Editorial Staff's wisdom. Well justifies the several thousand Mom & Dad (or the State, if they went the route of indentured servitude known as financial aid) spent on your tuition this year.

A little confusion here, which is not uncommon to those still in the hormone-dominated throes of post-adolescence. Guns are the issue, but not everyone who owns one will do evil things with them. So, they refine their argument a bit:

The only logical solution to this problem is to step up the criteria for owning a gun -- or knife or whatever -- and make it near impossible for anyone with a mental problem, diagnosed or not, to come near them.

The ramifications for those who had breakdowns over losing the 2004 presidential election are dire.


Boston College: This one comes from a year and a half ago, doing a little bit of journalistic investigation covering a 2005 GAO report entitled "Gun Control and Terrorism." The report details a whopping 44 instances in 2004 where the NICS identified people with positive matches to a terrorist watch list.

35 of them were passed because there was nothing valid to deny the transaction. Let's stop right there and ask ourselves a few questions:

- What were the details surrounding these cases? They're lacking. Some may have wanted protection because they turned their back on whatever organization they were part of.

- Would you rather civil rights be trampled upon because of suspicion without evidence? I wouldn't want a gun in the hand of another Timothy McVeigh, but if it means disarming the majority of citizens to strain out a few pesky gnats (and guns used in crime comprise about a tenth of a percent of all privately-owned guns)--I'd err on the side of civil rights here.

- Speaking of numbers, where's the comparison to the total number of NICS checks initiated?

Add all of these together, and you see why the issue really received so little attention nationally. It seems the 2nd Amendment is doing a pretty good job improving national security, despite one dweeb's pathetic attempt at hinting that it's undermining it.


When I first checked out Carnegie Mellon's Tartan Online for material, the gay wedding ring ad (Puh-lease) made me think "Oh God...I bet I can tell what kind of articles I can find here" (since pro-gay usually means pro-Left, and therefore, anti-RKBA). But you can't judge a book by the cover. There's a 2005 forum article about guns on campus--pro, by the way. So much for first impressions.

What caught my eye was the more recent (Oct. 10) article about a philosophy professor who has "an arsenal of guns bigger than the National Guard," "600 hours of deadly force firearms training," has co-authored and edited an official police weapons training document, is a sworn deputy, and is a self-proclaimed gunnie.

His stance on his students' reactions:

"They're intrigued by it, perhaps put off by it, but intrigued, and they want to know more. Which is what I would wish my effect on my students to be. Whatever kind of clown I come off as being, I would wish that the effect on my students as being they want to know more. Wonder begins inquiry and if they are wondering about me, well maybe they'll sit still long enough for the videos and the readings [that allow them to] dig into the issue."

I like this guy. An academician and a gun nut. Wish there were more like us around.


Did you guys like that? Here's some more encouragement from Drexel University. One student debunks the hype surrounding the .50BMG in a Sci-Tech article. For example:

Another claim is that the .50-caliber rifle would be the perfect weapon for criminals, since a mugger with that much firepower would be, shall we say, difficult to deal with. I think this claim is made by people that have never seen a .50-caliber rifle: the things are enormous. Five and a half feet long (that is to say, probably taller than you are,) they weigh upwards of 35 pounds. Most .50-caliber rifles are bolt-action and have to be manually reloaded after each shot. Let me be more blunt: I'm not afraid of anything that fires one bullet a minute, weighs 35 pounds, and is almost six feet long. If a mugger pulled one of these one me, I would laugh. I'd be more afraid of pretty much anything else: a different type of gun, a knife, heck, even a crowbar would scare me more.

It is well worth a read, very informative, and written in the sort of "wake up you dumb@$$" attitude I love to read every so often. While you're at it, send a copy over to the .50 caliber terror (mongering) guys.


A blast from the past from Florida A&M, lamenting last year's legislation intended to better protect those caught up in the inevitable legal process following the use of deadly force in self-defense.

People, it was not written as a measure to for citizens to "be their own police," nor does it give "entirely too much freedom to the trigger-happy, gun-toting NRA members who want an excuse to kill the people who tick them off." Check the membership of the NRA and count how many members have a criminal history. Then compare it to the Democratic Party.

I think libs confuse that organization with the IRA. With as much depth as most of them look into gun issues, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true.


More recently, a student at LSU noticed last week what the pro-RKBA crowd has been saying about "gun free zones" all along: they're open invitations to criminals.

The intent of such legislation is to provide an area where firearms are forbidden and thus make those areas "safer." In effect, two groups of people are allowed firearms: police and criminals. While a real life game of "cops and robbers" plays out in these areas, the law-abiding citizen is left out in the cold, not even able to fend for themselves.

It didn't really help prevent three armed robberies near LSU's campus shortly before the article was written.

And that's it for this week's round-up. Stay tuned next week for more of the same!