PITTSBURGH, May 27, 2009—A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) has been threatened with disciplinary action for her efforts. Student Christine Brashier has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help after reporting that administrators banned her informational pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies of them, and told her that further “academic misconduct” would not be tolerated. [snip]
According to Brashier, the deans told Brashier that passing out her non-commercial pamphlets was prohibited as “solicitation.” They told Brashier that trying to “sell” other students on the idea of the organization was prohibited.
CCAC also told Brashier that the college must pre-approve any distribution of literature to fellow students, and that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, even insisting that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet.
Now, it goes without saying (and yet I shall say it!) that FIRE is an advocacy organization; this story is being told from the viewpoint of the student. There may be other factors involved that we do not know about.
That being said, the deans’ grounds for complaint are STUPID.
Trying to “sell” someone on the idea of forming a group is “solicitation”? You have got to be kidding me. It hasn’t been all that long since I was AT college, you know, and it seems half the point of university is for students to form groups. (Often they are silly, pointless groups that don’t actually get anything done – obviously any group I ever headed falls into that category – but that’s beside the point.) Student initiative, student participation, student involvement – any of these ring a bell? Student activity fairs are devoted entirely to “solicitation,” now?
I swear a retarded rabbit could have come up with a more plausible “reason” to ban Brashier’s fliers.
I was thinking about how to explain support of Second Amendment rights to the average person in Boston* this morning, and I came up with the following:
Let’s say I’m in my apartment alone and two or three 6-foot, 220 lb thugs break in with baseball bats in their hands and rape on their minds.**
Hypothetically, I’m unarmed.
Therefore, hypothetically, I am SCREWED.
I will put up a helluva fight, I promise. I may be only 5’3”, but I’m pretty strong for my size; I can piggy-back 200-lb men or carry ten grocery bags at a time. While balancing a case of water on my head. I’m scrappy, and if my physical safety is in danger I will have no qualms about fighting as dirty as possible.
I’m pretty strong for my size. And that’s the kicker, isn’t it?
Because the fact is, a gun is the ONLY weapon that would give me a fighting chance in that scenario. It’s the only tool that would allow a small female a chance to defeat three large male opponents. (Okay, fine, a flamethrower or a chainsaw might work, but let’s be a LITTLE realistic here.)
If you don’t want to own a gun, that is completely FINE. It’s a huge responsibility and not for everyone.
But why would you deny me the ability to defend myself in that scenario?
*I am assuming that the average person in Boston would not consider “Because it’s in the Constitution” a convincing argument.
**BTW, Mike knows that, if someone ever does break in, his job is to instantly pick up a Yankee Candle jar (we have them all over the apartment) and fastball it directly at the guy’s face. I’d do it myself, but I have THE WORST throwing arm you’ve ever seen. Throwing a candle directly at the floor in front of me might slow the goon down a little (to avoid the broken glass), but not much else.
(h/t Hot Air)