If you haven’t heard already (because the drama queen was very public about his decision, so people would ostensibly realize what a loss he was to the school) associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Kansas Jacob Dorman has tendered his resignation, because he got his mangina chafed at the state’s decision to allow concealed carry on campus. Because, you see, Dorman believes his cowardice, inability to control his bladder, and utter disdain for human rights should trump others’ right to defend himself. Additionally, Dorman believes other professors are just like him – pusillanimous dick brains, who apparently don’t understand this nation’s history, despite having taught it for a decade, as he reminds us in his resignation letter – will leave institutions of higher learning in droves.
In practical terms, concealed carry has proven to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as suspects themselves.
It’s typical of a panty-shitting coward to start his claims with misleading information. He claims concealed carry has been a failure, which is a disingenuous assertion since most colleges and universities ban concealed carry on campus, and overall crime on college campuses, including those that allow concealed carry, is minuscule. In 2015 Texas became just the eighth state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Arkansas and Georgia in 2017 passed legislation to allow students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. And given the misinformation vomited forth by Bloomberg-funded anti-rights groups about school shootings was debunked in 2014, Dorman’s claims are mendacious at best.
But maybe Dorman was claiming that concealed carry does not deter violence writ large. Could that be?
But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that this is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state.
Yep, that’s what Dorman is claiming, and that makes him look like a biased, uninformed douche tool, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. In fact, there have not been any problems with campus concealed carry in states that allow it. But hey, Dorman, don’t let that stop your froth-flecked histrionics! They’re effective kabuki theater for anyone ignorant enough about the issue and determined enough to fall for your hysterical rhetoric.
Fact is, Dorman thinks very highly of himself. He’s obviously quite the social justice warrior, as a student in his 300-level history class who rated Dorman only average, and noted, “I liked the course but I wish we had covered more and that it wasn’t focused only on race,” and he thinks that jamming the university full of progtards like himself is a desirable goal.
Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.
Boy, for someone who is supposed to be teaching history, Dorman is certainly illiterate and ignorant of what the Second Amendment actually says. I’ve referred to Roy Copperud – an acknowledged language expert – who definitively analyzed the text of the Second Amendment, and who shredded Dorman’s spurious claims, in multiple blog posts.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
But maybe Dorman should take a grammar class before bloviating on the meaning of text he quite obviously does not comprehend, because this obviously illiterate fuck monkey is teaching impressionable students American history, when he has obvious issues even comprehending the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and that’s just no bueno. Probably a good thing he’s bidding the university a fond farewell.
And I won’t even address the incredibly tone-deaf, arrogant, supercilious claim that the “best trained professors” only come from progtard ranks where everyone is as ignorant as he is on the meaning of 27 little words, written in plain English!
Moving on, Dorman engages in some interesting projection when it comes to students carrying firearms. As a matter of fact, he essentially denigrates and demeans anyone in his class who may choose to carry a tool of self defense as someone apt to use their firearm in anger, someone untrained, and someone not in control of their temper. Further, he degrades adults who choose to exercise their rights as people intolerant of others views, when numerous events over the past few years have shown exactly the opposite to be true. Remember Yale? Remember Mizzou? Remember TrigglyPuff? Remember Berkeley?
Moreover, we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that an argument could easily be lethal. Guns in the classroom will have a chilling effect on free speech and hinder the university’s mission to facilitate dialogue across lines of division. That stifling of dialogue will hurt all students, including the ones with guns in their pockets.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you self-important, clue-deficient, bloviating, shit gurgler? The threat of being fired, expelled or otherwise sanctioned for expressing an opinion with which the leftist Snowflake brigade disagrees.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you narcissistic assbag? The open and public effort to hire only “progressives,” to teach at universities while working to shut out any professor whose views you find disagreeable.
You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you smug, insulated twat blister? Drowning out dissenting speech and threatening violence to silence speakers with whose views you may not agree!
Trained, responsible adults, who are known to have very low incidents of criminal activity carrying tools of self defense in your classrooms should be the least of your worries! But since you’re a quivering, flapping mangina, you’re solely focused on the presence of an “evil” tool which may or may not be present in your classroom (you’ll never know, asshat – much like you’ll never know if someone is illegally carrying a concealed firearm), rather than the environment in today’s colleges, which you help perpetuate, and which insulates students from dissenting views and allows you to publicly urinate on those with whom you disagree with impunity.
Kansas faces a very clear choice: does it want excellent universities with world class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?
Yes, Kansas does face a very clear choice. Does it want professors on campus who, like Dorman, are intent on casting aspersions on the very students whose views claims to want to protect, but who obviously only cares about those views with which he happens to agree? Does it want professors who can’t even comprehend plain English (or alternately, intentionally misinterpret it to fit their views)?
Please, Dorman, take your options to teach elsewhere! Go away, and take your gaggle of insipid, cunt-chafed snowflakes with you!
You are the problem. You and your howling, perpetually outraged, spineless ilk are what stifles free speech on today’s campuses.
The University of Kansas should consider itself lucky to be rid of you.
The debate about having guns on college campuses continues, and government bureaucrats seem to be getting more shrill about their belief that guns should be kept away from college campuses.
Yesterday, University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling said she hopes a proposal to revoke a ban on guns in campus buildings doesn’t even get to the point where she would have to testify against it at a hearing.
“I hope the people of Wisconsin realize that college campuses are different and are unique,” Riseling said. “Where does this end? Do we then make sure that our school zones are not gun-free anymore? It just keeps going on and on. The proliferation of weapons in our society is actually leading to more problems, not fewer problems.”
Yes, college campuses are, in fact, different and unique. They’re much bigger than your average elementary school, where an armed resources officer can respond to an incident in a reasonable amount of time, and most of them forbid law-abiding adults – both students and professors – from carrying firearms on campus, rendering them and those around them defenseless. Even police will admit it takes them a few minutes to respond to a violent event. How many innocent people can an armed thug gun down in that time?
No. The best way to stop a violent attack is with immediate violent response. An armed, trained civilian is there at the onset of an event. Does Riseling honestly think this will create more problems than it will solve?
There are currently three states that allow concealed carry of firearms on campus: Idaho, Colorado, and Utah.
Idaho passed legislation to allow concealed carry on its eight public colleges and universities in March 2014. Since then, there have been no mass shootings, no blood in the streets, and no incidents of students shooting one another on campus. There was one incident of a negligent discharge when a professor carrying his firearm in his pocket (REALLY?!) shot himself in the foot. Other than that, no incidents, no shootings, nothing.
In Utah, 13 universities and colleges permit concealed guns on campus. Again, nothing happened. No one has been shot on campus, accidentally or otherwise. Gun grabbing nuts will screech about the cancellation of feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian’s speech at Utah State University last year due to alleged “threats,” which authorities didn’t even think were credible. However, the cancellation was not the result of concealed carry being allowed on campus, but rather because Sarkeesian pitched a fit when the university refused to treat her like a VIP and spend time and money securing the venue against questionable threats.
Colorado has numerous colleges that allow concealed firearms on campus. In the 12 years that the state has allowed guns on campus there hasn’t been a single crime committed by permit holders. There have been no mass shootings, no blood running on campus streets, and only one negligent discharge by an employee resulting in no injuries and a firing of the employee in question.
But facts don’t matter to Riseling, who went on to claim that “In essence, it’s going to increase the likelihood of an accident, mistake, a fight that would have been settled with fists being settled by gunfire as we saw recently at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.”
Of course, Riseling conveniently forgot to mention that students are prohibited from carrying guns on that college’s campus, and the shooter, who has been charged with one count of first degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault by the Northern Arizona University police department, wasn’t carrying that weapon legally on campus in the first place. But hey… anything to advance the narrative, right?
Riseling’s final point advocates mental health intervention and threat assessment teams as the best way to prevent campus shootings. “That’s the way to prevent these things from happening. It’s not the way to react by letting everyone be armed. That’s not going to solve any of our problems.” Here we see the typical gun grabber fallacy. Allowing trained, law-abiding individuals to defend themselves and others with a firearm in case of an armed attack is in no way equivalent to “letting everyone be armed.” Ultimately gun ownership and the will to carry is a choice that far from everyone will be willing to make. It’s a responsibility for others that many don’t want. And while mental health services and threat assessment teams are all well and good, when it comes to an active shooter incident, they have already failed.
“It’s not going to prevent anything,” Riseling ignorantly claims. Well, except when it did.
Like in the 1997 Pearl High School massacre that was stopped by vice principal Joel Myrick with his Colt .45, which he had to retrieve from his car
Like at the Parker Middle School dance in 1998 when 14-year-old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others before being subdued by James Strand – the owner of the venue where the dance took place, who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived.
Like the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002 where two armed students stopped an armed nutbag from committing more carnage.
It really boggles the mind that these spineless amoeba are so terrified of guns, that they don’t even think one should try to stop a violent offender! It’s not often that armed students or teachers on the scene stop a rampaging armed derelict (mostly thanks to the disarmament policies at schools and campuses), so therefore no one should even attempt it, according to these panty shitters.
These are the same invertebrates who claim that because the Warsaw Ghetto uprising still resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews, arming victims does nothing, so why bother? Does that mean you just genuflect in front of your abusers? Does this mean you don’t try to resist? Does this mean you just give up your life without a fight?
They don’t want you to have even a fighting chance at survival! They’re cowards who would rather die on their knees and fight for their lives.
Probably because they believe that giving students on our college campuses an opportunity to fight back will reduce the need for armed authorities, bureaucrats, “threat assessment teams” and anything else that justifies their existence. After all, an armed individual is an independent human being, capable of taking immediate action should the situation warrant intervention. A priggish bureaucrat can’t possibly match that ability, making the bureaucrat as useless as Roseanne Barr at a gym.
My latest from JPFO explores so-called “civility.”
Have you ever noticed how gun grabbers belittle, vilify and berate those of us who vocally support and defend the Second Amendment as “paranoid,” “irrational” and “extremist,” while hypocritically demanding “civility” when we begin to push back?
We are supposed to bow to their recently-invented, unreasonable “right to feel safe,” (which must be in the Constitution right between the right to a pony and the right to your very own leprechaun with a pot of gold) as justification for relieving us of our fundamental right to defend ourselves against violence. We are supposed to show respect for their hoplophobia, even if it harms us and destroys our freedoms in the long run. We’re supposed to be polite and civil, even as they berate us for merely wishing to freely exercise our rights. We’re supposed to subordinate very real basic freedoms to their irrational whims.
The great Dave Kopel reports that just minutes ago California’s Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
The Court decided, according to Kopel, that the requirement to show the authorities “good cause” in order to carry one’s tool of self defense in public was in violation of the Second Amendment. Prior to this decision, San Diego County interpreted this phrase to mean that anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights in public must face current specific threats and claimed that “one’s personal safety alone is not considered ‘good cause’.”
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The opinion is here.
The Court specifically says that the Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arm but also to “bear” them – a verb the meaning of which, according to the 2008 Heller decision means “to carry.” It meant “to carry” at the time of the creation of the Constitution, and it means the same thing now. And no, it doesn’t mean just “to transport,” but to “wear, bear or carry upon the person for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another person. The Court also points out that anyone with half a brain and knowledge of the English language understands that carrying or “bearing” is not limited to the home, and it cites several cases, including Heller, to point out that it’s quite obvious that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to carry their arms outside the home.
The Court made it clear that they’re not saying Heller requires every state to permit concealed carry, but rather it requires that states permit “some form” of carry for self defense outside the home.
Score for the Second Amendment!
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and San Diego County’s insistence that anyone wishing to carry outside the home show that they’re somehow in immediate danger and present proof that their life is threatened was quite obviously an infringement.
To be sure, my own opinion is that “shall not be infringed” means just that, and while background checks and training requirements are all well and good, they’re certainly not going to stop gang bangers and other thuglets from carrying wherever and whenever they want – without a license or a permit. Meanwhile, those Californians who abide by the law, will be waiting around for their permits to arrive and for the county to perform their background check, making them vulnerable prey for predators wanting to victimize them.
So, do I think the decision in Peruta v. San Diego is optimal?
Do I think the battle is over?
Far from it.
Do I think this is a step in the right direction?
Let’s keep fighting!