Has the fellow often hailed
here (and
here,
here and
here) as "Stalker Steve" been rehabilitated and fully recovered from his statist ways?
Here's the controversy. Inside Higher Ed posted the following story about students being prevented from exercising their First Amendment rights in support of Second Amendment rights:
Quote:Community College Sued Over Limits on Rallies
Two students -- backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- are suing the Tarrant County College District, charging that its limits on rallies are violations of First Amendment rights, the Associated Press reported. The college permits protest activities only in a limited free speech zone, and requires advance permission to schedule events there. College officials say that the rules are consistent with federal and state requirements. But the students say that they are being blocked from engaging in legitimate protest. The students want to rally on behalf of the right to carry concealed weapons on campus and they say that they are being barred from wearing empty holsters on campus as an expression of their views.
In response some bonehead calling himself Diogenes offered the following comment:
Quote:Ring Wing Agitation Handbook Lesson One
Posted by Diogenes on November 6, 2009 at 10:00am EST
If you don't like a reasonable policy that doesn't agree with your canned ideology, claim it a free speech issue even though its not and grab as many headlines as possible. And before all the lefties out there start crowing "amen," they learned this from you in the 60's. Behind every right wing agit-prop activity is a little bit o' Mao. Just ask $600,000 a year David Horowitz.
Typical socialist crap, of course. Unless there really is something out there called the "Ring Wing," this Diogenes is a douchebag who can't even spell "Right" correctly. I'm sure if the students were, say, advocating pervert rights by wearing condoms on their empty heads that Diogenes would be right there with them. But who would expect DI/DD stalwart Stalkin' Steve to ride to the rescue of Second Amendment advocates?
Quote:Posted by Steve Foerster on November 6, 2009 at 11:15am EST
Of course it's a free speech issue! When you tell students they can't wear t-shirts and empty holsters as a way to express their views, what could that possibly be other than censorship? And when you have tiny free speech zones, what else could the rest of the campus be other than a place where speech isn't free?
If you want to disagree with these students on this issue, that's fine. But they have a right to be heard, and that right is being systematically disrespected here.
Nicely stated and right on point. Have we misjudged Steve, or has he simply seen the light? No longer a Jenny Masseldorf wannabe but instead a defender of [shudder] free speech
and the right to bear arms? Keep up the good work, Steve.
So suppose that school removes restrictions in place...what's next?
For every 20 republican hooligans marching to support firearms, you'll get 2000 democratic hooligans marching to support gay marriage, affirmative actions, black rights, women rights, genocide studies, chicano rights, LGBT rights, diversity studies...
ham Wrote:So suppose that school removes restrictions in place...what's next?
Common sense more-or-less prevails. People thinking for themselves...could be another disturbing trend.
Students Win Right to Protest With Empty Holsters
Quote:A federal judge in Texas on Friday granted a temporary injunction allowing two students to wear empty holsters in public spaces at Tarrant County College as part of a national series of student protests this week over laws or policies barring concealed weapons on college campuses. The students -- backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- sought the injunction against rules that would have limited them to wearing the empty holsters in a "free speech zone" and not elsewhere on campus. The judge agreed with their claim that they were likely to prevail in their challenge to the strict limits on where they could engage in peaceful protest. But the judge did not extend the injunction to classrooms, where the students remained barred from wearing their empty holsters.
ham Wrote:So suppose that school removes restrictions in place...what's next?
For every 20 republican hooligans marching to support firearms, you'll get 2000 democratic hooligans marching to support gay marriage, affirmative actions, black rights, women rights, genocide studies, chicano rights, LGBT rights, diversity studies...
All too often "free speech" at a college campus just means freedom for the PC drones to say whatever wherever, and shout down anyone who differs.
I remember going to see the communist
Angela Davis speak at a local college campus years ago. I was hoping for a little of that snappy bomb-throwing rhetoric you expect from radical knuckleheads. But instead she just droned on and on, whining about how "fascists" were involved in this and that and everything else. I turned to my buddy and said quietly (I thought), "I bet she checks under her bed at night for fascists." Suddenly so many heads are spinning in my direction it looks like "The Exorcist" on speed, all with that sneering "who farted?" look that socialist parasites seem to be born with. If you aren't parroting the party line you better STFU. Get in line, march in step, follow our rules or be banned. Yes, just like the TOS for DI and DD.
More about the gun rights protestors at the FIRE website:
Victory for First Amendment on Campus: Federal Court Grants Temporary Restraining Order Against Free Speech Zone, Permitting 'Empty Holster' Protest
Quote:November 6, 2009
by Azhar Majeed
In a victory for First Amendment rights on campus, a federal district court in Texas has granted two students at Tarrant County College (TCC) a temporary restraining order prohibiting TCC from censoring an "empty holster" protest scheduled for next week.
The court's decision to grant the order came two days after the students filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order, arguing that by enforcing its "free speech zone" policy to quarantine next week's protest, TCC would violate the students' First Amendment rights. The request for a temporary restraining order accompanied a lawsuit seeking the permanent dismantling of TCC's free speech zone, and was filed by Fort Worth attorney Karin Cagle and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas in cooperation with FIRE.
In granting the temporary restraining order, the federal court held that the students would suffer "immediate and irreparable injury" if TCC were allowed to restrict the protest event, due to the free speech zone policy's use of a permit system that contains no guidelines or standards for decision-making as well as the lack of access provided to traditional public forums such as sidewalks, streets, and park areas. The court's opinion declared that the student-plaintiffs Clayton Smith and John Schwertz, Jr. must not be prevented by the college from "wearing empty holsters, wearing t-shirts depicting empty holsters, discussing handgun regulations, and distributing pamphlets on handgun regulation in traditional public-forum areas including, but not limited to, public streets, sidewalks, and common or park areas."
United States District Judge Terry R. Means wrote:
Quote:Smith and Schwertz certainly intend to convey a particularized message by their wearing of empty holsters—that they oppose Texas law and TCC regulations that prohibit students from possessing concealed handguns on campus, and that such laws leave students unprotected. And there is a great likelihood that the empty holsters will be understood as conveying this message, particularly given the circumstances in which Smith and Schwertz seek to wear them: as part of an organized, nationwide protest in which participants will wear t-shirts depicting empty holsters, discuss their opposition to laws and school regulations prohibiting the possession of concealed weapons on campus, and distribute pamphlets on the issue.
Smith and Schwertz have satisfied the other requirements for securing a temporary restraining order regarding the restrictions on their ability to speak in traditional public forums as well. They have shown that they face a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted in that they are in the untenable position of forgoing their First Amendment rights or engaging in their desired speech and thereby subjecting themselves to disciplinary action by TCC. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976) ("The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."). They have further shown that the threatened injury to them—inability to engage in protected speech or risk disciplinary action—outweighs any potential harm to TCC and Hadley. Smith and Schwertz seek only to engage in a peaceful demonstration in areas traditionally considered public forums. Moreover, they note that several similar demonstrations have taken place on college campuses across the country without incident. Finally, injunctive relief will not undermine the public interest, but will serve it, in that it will be in protection of First Amendment rights without any significant detrimental impact on TCC's objective of educating its students. Cf. Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that the public interest is undermined by allowing unconstitutional conduct to stand but is served by ensuring a school district acts in accordance with the Constitution).
However, the court declined to extend the temporary restraining order to allow students to wear empty holsters inside of TCC classrooms and adjacent hallways, ruling that Smith and Schwertz, Jr.'s motion did not demonstrate a "substantial likelihood of success on this aspect of their claim" because TCC may be successful in arguing that it may regulate in-classroom speech differently than other speech on campus. FIRE does not believe that TCC will ultimately be successful in that argument.
Today's opinion is a huge victory for Clayton, John, and free speech on campus, particularly because the legal bar for issuing a temporary restraining order is quite high—which indicates that the court reads the plaintiffs' case as having a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In today's ruling, the district court agreed with FIRE's argument that by limiting student expression to a tiny segment of campus, TCC unconstitutionally restricts students' First Amendment rights where they should be freest—the public university campus.
As a result of this victory, Clayton, John, and their fellow students at Tarrant County College will be able to proceed with next week's protest. FIRE hails this great victory for student speech rights, and we look forward to the students' lawsuit challenging the free speech zone on its face. The first hearing on the full suit is scheduled for November 16.
Of course, we will have more to say on The Torch on this case as it proceeds.
■
Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, November 3, 2009, PDF, 285.1 KB
Here's one for our friends in Tarrant County, and elsewhere:
A Brief History of the Right to Self-Defense
Quote:by Bob Heinritz
11/10/2009
For the first 150-years of the existence of the U.S.A., the right of citizens to carry arms was so fundamental it was not considered worthy of debate. The Founders considered their right to keep and bear arms the ultimate and most fundamental guarantee of life and free-dom against crime, foreign invasion, and as a last resort, a despotic government. No knowledgeable American--from the founding of the United States through the mid-1950's--would have questioned that the Second Amendment to the Constitution meant exactly what it says, "… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was not a right of a Militia. The "Militia" was--and under current law still is--all able-bodied adults, who are expected to keep their privately-owned arms similar to what is used by the military at the time.
Nineteenth-century U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, called the American right to bear arms "the palladium of the liberties of the republic." Our Founders believed that in a free society good citizens must always be prepared to defend themselves and their country. Thomas Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us freedom to defend life." Being armed was more than a right. It was a moral obligation of citizenship. Twentieth-century history proves the wisdom of this philosophy:
In 1911, Turkey established gun-control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun-control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20-million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun-control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13-million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun-control. From 1948 to 1952, 20-million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun-control. From 1975 to 1977, 1.5-million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun-control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun-control. From 1971 to 1979 over 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Australia: In the 21st Century, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms --which were then destroyed by their own government. This program cost Australian taxpayers more than $500-million. Results the first year:
1. Australia-wide: Homicides up 3.2-percent.
2. Australia-wide: Assaults up 8.6-percent.
3. Australia-wide: Armed robberies up 44-percent - yes, 44-percent!
4. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms went up 300-percent. One doesn't have to be a rocket-scientist to understand this. While the law-abiding citizens turned their guns in, the criminals did not. The illegal-gun trade thrives!
5. Australian criminal-data over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms. This has drastically changed upward, since criminals now are guaranteed their prey is unarmed.
6. There has also been a dramatic increase in home break-ins and assaults on the elderly.
7. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental efforts and expense were expended in successfully ridding Australian society--but not the criminals--of guns.
8. The Australian experience and the other historical facts leave no reasonable doubt. So called "gun-control" is harmful to freedom and public-safety.
Great Britain: At the beginning of the 20th Century, Great Britain had few "gun-control" laws as we now know them. Although there were different class-restrictions, guns were freely available to nearly anyone. While the American militia originated from traditional British rights, the British Crown was aware that the very existence of a civilian-militia denied the monarchy a monopoly of force. Over the decades, Britain used various threats of revolution, Irish-separatism, and two world wars, as a pretext to enact ever-increasing restrictions and controls of guns in private hands. Currently, legal acquisition of a gun is nearly impossible for law-abiding British subjects. Despite this, the British government and British police have been unable to show these restrictions have reduced crime. Today, there are far more illegal guns in Britain, and far more violent crime. "Hot burglaries" -- that is burglaries in which the criminal knows the home-owners are home -- are eight times more likely in Britain than in the U.S.. Tourists and natives alike are five times more likely to be victims of a violent crime in London than in New York.
United States: In all but two states of the U.S., law-abiding civilians who apply, submit to a police-check, and demonstrate reasonable firearms-proficiency and knowledge of the law, may receive a license to carry a concealed firearm. Contrary to threats by gun-control advocates, this has not resulted in "blood in the streets" or any increase of crime or gun-violence. In all U.S. jurisdictions where lawful concealed carry is possible, violence and violent crime has decreased significantly. Multiple criminological studies have demonstrated that in the U.S. each year over 2.5-million crimes are stopped or deterred by armed American civilians; most with no one being shot or harmed. On the other hand, in jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C., or Chicago, Illinois, where handguns are banned and long-guns must be disassembled and/or locked up, the homicide rate skyrocketed to eight times the national average.
Worldwide: The concept that free people have the right to defend themselves is as old as civilization. Under ancient Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon law, the ceremony of freeing a slave included placing a weapon in his hands "as a symbol of his new rank." Aristotle wrote in Politics 68 that "true citizenship included the right to possess arms, and that armed tyrants disarmed the oppressed." So what results from our "more advanced" thinking of the 20th Century? Conservatively, in excess of 100-million defenseless unarmed-civilians were rounded up and exterminated by various governments. (See data.)
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our President, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Guns in the hands of honest citizens preserve freedom and dignity -- from both criminal and government predators. And, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. The gun-control party is now in the majority in Congress. Take note before it's too late. The next time a politician talks in favor of gun-control, please remind all who are listening of the lesson of history. All credible scholarship indicates so-called "gun-control" laws never work, are dangerous to the rights of the law-abiding, and are inconsistent with the values on which the United States were founded. The Founders of America had it right. With guns, we are "citizens." Without them, we are "subjects." Please spread this civil-rights message -- the right to life -- to all of your friends, and especially all your government servants. You don't work for them. They work for you.
This article is courtesy of the United States Concealed Carry Association. To get your free copy of the Armed American newsletter click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management, economics, law and a member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois and Missouri. He is a former trial lawyer, and now is a business attorney and management consultant, specializing in strategic planning, productivity and business turnarounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a crock of emotional bullshit...
So, in the great USA you have the right to bear arms, but this did NOT prevent Wacko from happening, or any other 'accident' or 'incident' whenever big brother thinks fine to frame, corner or kill anybody for any reason.
The right to bear arms did not stop big brother from entering WWII, nor did it stop it from entering the Vietnam war, whose human and financial costs the taxpayer would bear.
Some may have profited from the theft of German patents after WWI and WWII, but sure it wasn't Joe Bozo Patriot who was enlisting.
What if Joe Bozo Patriot had used this " palladium of the liberties of the republic", since they were intended to help resist oppression, not to kill the beggar who stole three apples because he's starving?
He'd be shot down like a traitor for not wanting to defend the great country. Period.
Face it...
Even under Nazi or Communist occupation, vast networks of underground armed dissent existed...who knows why we had to wait for Gorbachev to change things.
Jews and dissidents in the Warsaw ghetto had plenty of firearms and were both supported and incited to their demise by allied agitators...it didn't help.
I have firearms at home, too, and a permit...
Do you know that if I accidentally murder an illegal alien who's entered my house to commit an armed robbery, I am going to jail for murder and possibly hate crimes?
Do you know that if the armed burglar survives, he'll be paid compassionate visits by left wing parlamentarians, while I'll be making headlines as another monster next to that newly outed pedophile and that crazy antisemite writer?
Do you know that a woman who sent to hospital three illegal aliens who had tried to rape her (she was a self-defense expert of sort ) risked being tried (or was she?) because she had "exaggerated"?
That is just neocon crap.
Not that marching for firearms is bad, but let's be straight about who's pulling the wires and why.
Anyone who screws with me or my family gets a 12 guage perforation. I'll worry about the rest later. No jury in the world ........
A little more about this. Why would anyone attack soldiers on a military base? Aren't they, like,
soldiers with guns and stuff? No, actually they are like students on most college campuses, with no weapons and no ability to defend themselves from a mental case on a rampage.
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban
Quote:November 11, 2009
Foolish military gun controls left soldiers defenseless
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.
Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"
It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.
Quote:Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's
g-d bless America, prejudice-free land of opportunity for all...
Getting back on to the topic of Steve Foerster (sorry Steve, but you knew we would eventually)...
IIRC he's working on a doctorate at AT Still, which is a fine DL program. I wonder if, when he first started posting, he wasn't like a lot of newbies, eager to jump on the Klempner Klone bandwagon.
But then, as he got smarter and better educated, both in terms of his general knowledge and as to his understanding of DL issues, he began to see how being an agent for the wealthy higher education cartel is really not the same as being an agent for change or freedom.
When he got called out about being "Jenny Masseldorf" he said he had changed his point of view on a lot of those issues. Now, it would be nice if he had changed his viewpoint on, say, paying his child support too. But overall it seems like he's a guy whose aim is getting better as he begins to see the targets more clearly. The Klones are not about freedom at all, but rather about control and limiting choice.
Most of us grow over time, given the opportunity and the inclination. Steve seems like a guy who appreciates having choice and having a place for a thoughtful comment. Now it seems he more fully realizes who stands for that and who doesn't.