Via an anti-second amendment girl on Twitter (because guns are scary!), I was tipped to a shooting on the campus of San Jose State University that left three dead:
Ms. Gavran has been tweeting prodigiously over the last several days about the passage of the Campus Carry bill just passed through the Texas House. She’s very emotionally against allowing student, faculty, and staff at our state’s universities to defend themselves — even while on campus — or from fully practicing their second amendment rights.
The funny thing about tweets like the one above from anti-second amendment zealots like Ms. Gavran (who likely has never shot a gun, owned a gun, and likely comes from a home where there are no guns) — they think this strengthens and makes their case for not allowing licensed CHL holders to also legally carry their handguns on campus. When exactly the opposite is true.
From the news story:
Three people are dead after a shooting in a campus parking garage at San Jose State University, spokeswoman Pat Lopes Harris said Wednesday.
The incident occurred shortly after 8 p.m. Tuesday on the California campus. Harris said university police responded to a report of a possible shooting and found two people dead on the fifth floor of the garage. A third person was taken to a hospital but died upon arrival, Harris said.
Harris said it was not clear whether the deceased were students. No identities have been released pending autopsy results.
But…but…but…how did they get guns on campus? It’s a gun-free zone, don’t you know? Oh, that’s right — bad people intent on doing bad things to other people don’t really give a shit about your “gun-free” zones. Which means that when the shit hits the fan, the only people who will have guns are the bad people (and maybe, just maybe, the cops who will arrive in time to call an ambulance to come pick up your dead body).
Look, Ms. Gavran — if you don’t like campus concealed carry, here’s a very easy solution for you: Don’t fucking carry a gun on campus and keep your ignorant attitude about guns out of my holster and quit trying to prevent me from being able to protect myself (and, who knows, maybe even you and your hippie friends) from the wolves.
Sigh…youth truly is wasted on the young.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Yeah, I’m afraid that my experience also show that older and wiser is a better deal than young and stupid.
gun free zones = target rich environment
Since this was a gun free zone, these individuals clearly cannot be dead.
It’s like Canada, except that there are WAY TOO MANY FREE-REIGNING wolves, and way too many sheeple.
Sigh….stupid people.
Neither @balancing_raven nor any of the rest of us are anti-gun, and I don’t know where you get that idea. I personally have a concealed handgun permit. I don’t believe guns belong in classrooms.
You are making an assumption that the majority of crimes that happen on campus are pre-meditated. In fact, that is very rarely the case. First of all, only about 5% of violent crime against students happens on campus. Secondly, what does happen involves (a) other students, (b) alcohol, and (c) NO weapon.
None of us know what happened in San Jose. The news story is too sparse. We cannot draw conclusions about the implications of concealed carry for or against such incidents occurring without said information. I suspect @balancing_raven was just tweeting about it because it’s sad. Do you disagree with that? It’s sad when people get shot on college campuses. All of us, on both sides, would like it not to happen at all.
Innocent people getting shot anywhere is sad. Being shot on campus doesn’t make it any sadder. The fact that they reported that the shooter also died should tell you that it was a murder suicide which they are now reporting that it was. So far, there are no reports that the people involved were students.
And the majority of crimes on campus are premeditated. I don’t think you understand the legal definition of premeditation.
Is this what passes for “the truth” or “journalism” on this site? How about doing some research before you post blowhard crap like this? I know Julie Gavran, I work with her at UT Dallas. She is not “anti-Second Amendment” or “anti-gun”. She has extensive personal experience with firearms and she has also survived a gun incident on a college campus. Neither of us want guns on campus, and there are a few hundred thousand people in Texas that agree with us – most importantly the overwhelming majority of administrators, faculties, and (at least in graduate studies) students. There’s no more need for students to be armed on a college campus than there is in a courthouse, or an elementary school.
John’s points are well made, and Julie’s tweet about San Jose was to inform people of what had happened (I didn’t know until I saw her tweet) and also to express regret over the incident. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about and, quite frankly, you owe Julie Gavran an apology. What a disgraceful post.
I don’t owe Julie shit — I don’t play nice with those who work to strip or deny me my God-given rights (amongst them are the right to defend myself from those who would do me harm). You want to restrict my second amendment rights, so I’ll continue to mock, castigate, and fight you at every turn.
God gave you the right to carry a concealed handgun onto a college campus? Is that written down somewhere, or did he tell you personally?
What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” don’t you understand, asshole?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t from the Bible, it’s from the Constitution (which, by the way, can be changed). What part of Matthew Brown’s question didn’t YOU understand?
I wouldn’t worry too much about people fighting to keep guns off of college campuses, Robbie. From the sound of it, you’ve never even stepped foot on one before – so clearly the current ban under Texas state law wouldn’t really apply to you anyway.
Besides, I think you’ve got it backwards. No one is trying to “strip or deny [you] of your God-given rights”, the ban on guns on college campuses is already the law of the land. People are only trying to keep the law the way it is and the way it has been for decades. There’s no manifest need to have it changed.
And, for the record, this isn’t a Second Amendment issue – it never has been. The Second Amendment allows you to own firearms. It doesn’t specify where you’re allowed to bring them or under which conditions you’re allowed to use them. That is up to each state to decide, which is why there is a legitimate political debate about it within the state of Texas and not at the Federal level. But I wouldn’t expect a brilliant Constitutional scholar such as yourself to understand that.
And yeah – you can “mock, castigate and fight” with whomever you choose, but lying is a whole different ballgame. And, considering you’ve posted all of these comments online about Julie Gavran, you’ve opened yourself up to a nasty actionable case of libel. But again, I wouldn’t expect someone with your obvious intellect to have understood that before you shot your mouth off on your own personal fiefdom of a blog.
“And, considering you’ve posted all of these comments online about Julie Gavran, you’ve opened yourself up to a nasty actionable case of libel.”
You are so full of shit. Don’t make false legal claims when you don’t know fuck about the law.
It is actionable, Anonymous. Actionable doesn’t guarantee a finding for the plaintiff, but it does mean a suit could be brought. That was my point.
No, nothing posted here is actionable. What is actionable is a frivolous lawsuit.
You are really into these nonsense word games. Stop boring us!
Jeremy M. Prince wrote: “And, for the record, this isn’t a Second Amendment issue – it never has been. The Second Amendment allows you to own firearms. It doesn’t specify where you’re allowed to bring them or under which conditions you’re allowed to use them.”
Uh, the constitution says “Keep and Bear Arms” That’s generally interpreted as the right to carry arms. The constitution doesn’t say “except at public universities”, so your statement that this isn’t a 2nd amendment issue is FALSE.
“The right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms” is a phrase that makes it pretty clear that the Second Amendment protects a very expansive right to carry guns.
Actually it doesn’t “make it pretty clear that the Second Amendment protects a very expansive right to carry guns” Rhymes. As you fine gentlemen continue to forget to include in your quotations of the Second Amendment text, I’ll provide it for you:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See that part there in the beginning? “A well regulate Militia, necessary to the security of a free State”… That’s what we call a prepositional phrase or clause. That means that everything that comes after the prepositional phrase is governed by the language in the prepositional phrase. So the point of the amendment is to allow for a militia that could be raised to defend the nation. You see, until around the 20th century the United States didn’t have a standing military, it relied on militias in times of peace and raised conditional armies in times of war. That means that the right to bear arms is tied to the provision of national defense. But since the United States has a variety of national, local, federal, state, and municipal, civilian and military agencies that provide for the common defense, the “right to keep and bear arms” is null and void. But that’s a constitutional argument and not a question in keeping with the points of debate surrounding the campus carry bill.
So, yes, the Second Amendment does say that Congress may not infringe on the right to bear arms, but only in those cases which would inhibit the forming of a militia which is no longer necessary in light of the formation of police and military agencies.
Beyond that, the fact that states and the Federal government have very regularly passed laws and prohibitions on gun ownership and gun manufacturing, all without being successfully challenged in the courts – which means that the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is not “expansive”.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
Yes, and those people owned slaves and worked farms. And they didn’t have an army or police forces to provide security from foreign or domestic threats. So… nice quotes, but they don’t really touch the argument I’ve made because they are “parachronistic” or “anachronistic”.
Why am I not surprised with your dismissive attitude to the original intent of the founding of our nation and our constitution. Further proof that libturds really do hate this country.
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
District of Columbia v. Heller
>That means that the right to bear arms is tied to the provision of national defense.
And the real fact of the matter is that an individual doesn’t need a 2nd amendment to affirm a human right to defend ones self. Don’t make things up out of whole cloth. What you state exists nowhere in current jurisprudence.
Here’s a little truth for ya: If either of the two victims in this incident had been armed, they may still be alive today.
Sorry Anonymous, “truth” doesn’t come in the form of a counterfactual supposition.
Yes, we get it. You don’t give a shit about those two people being murdered.
Ridiculous, and false… again.
You are ridiculous but my observation that you don’t give a shit that two innocent people were murdered is right on point.
This is how these conversations seem to go:
Jeremy M. Prince: Logical argument, backed up with facts, in a respectful dialog.
Anonymous: “I know you are but what am I?” “Fuck you!”"You hate innocent people.”
Jeremy M. Prince: Something else logical.
Anonymous: “You’re stupid.” [Insert some "fact" from Fox News] “Screw you.”
There is nothing logical about misstating the law and talking out of your ass in order to try to shut people up that you disagree with. Which is what you pal is doing.
Christ-almighty, Anonymous, you really are stuck on stupid aren’t you? No one threatened anyone with legal action. I was simply pointing out that putting false statements about someone in print with the intention to defame that person (provided that person is not a recognized public figure) is libel, as defined by law. But don’t take my word for it:
Libel (from a legal dictionary):
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.
No one I know would waste any time actually suing Robbie for libel, but what he has posted about Julie does constitute an actionable set of statements.
False claims you’ve made about Julie Gavran:
1. That she’s anti-second amendment
2. That “guns are scary” is her reason for opposing guns on college campuses
3. That she lacks significant experience and familiarity with guns
4. That she is a zealot of any kind.
Far be it for you to try to find any of these things out for sure.
Even more dubious is your suggestion that “when the shit hits the fan,” that victims or bystanders carrying handguns is going to lead to things being better for the victims. I mean, it works great in cowboy movies, but what about some actual data?
So, your argument is based on false, ad hominem attacks AND dubious, unsupported assumptions likely drawn from cowboy fantasies? Nice, very high quality, very clearly thought out. Gives me a lot of optimism for the state of political discussion today.
If you can’t carry a gun for self protection and that is clearly what Gavran is arguing against, i.e., no guns on campus, then she is against the Second Amendment.
Wrong again, Anonymous. The Second Amendment does not specify where a gun may be brought or in what situation(s) it may be used. Not a Second Amendment issue. There are a number of places where guns are legally prohibited by a variety of state and federal laws. College campuses are already one of those places in the overwhelming majority of states in our country.
There is no logical reason for guns to be banned from campuses. These law should be challenged in court in that they infringe on the Second Amendment. I want to prevent innocent people from being murdered. You just want to spread your tired old leftard meme. Not interested.
Are you making the assertion that a CHL isn’t a second amendment issue?
Because that is what the law covers, lawful citizens with a CHL that would be allowed to carry them on campus.
When the only way any shooting on any campus has been concluded, is when people with guns(usually LE) arrive on the scene.
Why wait? When moments count, the police are only minutes away.
Criminals don’t worry about laws such as this, only honest citizens who go through the costly and intrusive process to acquire one. It isn’t the honest CHL citizen you should be so concerned with. It is the over emotional anti-gun types and criminals that get people shot and killed.
Have you even read the second amendment, kid? It reads:
Not only does the second amendment allow me to OWN arms, but to bear them. That means to carry them. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Holy shit kids these days are fucking stupid…
The First Amendment doesn’t specify where you may speak, so obviously the government may limit all speech to the confines of your own home and criminalize all public speech. Similarly, since the right to peaceably assemble does not specify where that right may be exercised, the government clearly has the poer to limit its exercise to private property. Right, Jeremy?
The First Amendment has limitations. So does the Second. The various states and the Federal government have consistently upheld that interpretation, hence the continued existence of weapon free zones. You may disagree, and that is your right, but it doesnt change the reality of current Court interpretations and rulings.
The reality is that the law has passed the House and when enacted, will not be struck down by the courts.
The First Amendment DOES have limitations. You can’t go around and shout “fire” in a crowded theater; likewise, you can’t go around and let every redneck that thinks he/she deserves a gun take one to class so they can “protect themselves.” Please watch 5 minutes of one episode of Jersey Shore and tell me that the world will be a better place when everyone 21+ carries a gun.
Also, Anonymous, I think your arguments are much stronger because of the “fucking kids are stupid these days…” comments you end with. Clearly this makes it obvious to us all that you’re a bigger man and far more brilliant than these other posters. If you don’t like people bitching about your ignorant diatribes against college students, don’t post ignorant shit on the internet. If you like the 2nd Amendment so much, have a little more respect for the 1st.
Well, kids…at the end of the day, the law will be changed to broaden our second amendment rights…despite all of your ineffective protestations. Because, for all of the ‘hundreds of thousands’ who might agree with you, millions more of Texans oppose you.
So, this college graduate (Baylor University and the University of Houston-Downtown), US Army Veteran (where they taught us a thing or two about shooting guns and shooting bad people), CHL-carrying guy will now be able to carry on YOUR campus, too.
And don’t worry, kids. If I’m around, and a bad guy tries to do bad things to you or those around you on your campus, I’ll protect your defenseless asses despite how sorry I feel for you sheep. Because that’s what sheepdogs do.
I don’t expect you do understand. You’re just taking these stances to get laid by the cute little hippie chicks.
Oh, and if Julie (or one of you sheep) want to bring a libel suit, all I have to do is say, bring it bitches. Oh, and you might want to do so before Gov. Perry signs the Loser Pays tort reform bill into law. ‘Cause my lawyers ain’t going to be cheap.
Another battle won, Robbie, with many more yet to come.
I’ll never forget Ann “Doritoes” Richards vetoing a referendum for the citizens of Texas to express their will, whether they wanted a CHL or not. Her words were “the people of Texas didn’t need to vote on something like CHL.” One year later, with many Texans wearing “Veto Ann” buttons, she got her skinny ass stomped in the ’94 election by W, who quickly signed the law in ’95.
I’ll never forget the first time a CHL holder in Dallas shot and killed his attacker, the Grand Jury no-billed him quickly. There was a very minor traffic incident, where a delivery trucks side view mirror clipped or was clipped by the mirror of the CHL holder. The CHL holder was a diminutive man of about 5’6″ and 145lbs. with a heart condition and he was attacked by a semi-pro heavy weight boxer. He was pummeling the CHL holder through his window, at which time the victim of the attack pulled and fired his Beretta killing his attacker.
Not only can an honest citizen end an attack by a shooter, but also by someone who would literally beat the shit out of you.
Seems to me like when something is out of proportion it’s about something else. Robbie your childish temper tantrums are so out of proportion maybe it’s about a small penis or something. Don’t know why you are choosing to make personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, but your mother must have taught you better manners than that. We aren’t on the school playground here – we are adults who have different opinions. Why are you so scared of the democratic process? You are simply a bully and I guess you went into the Army because you didn’t have the guts to go into the Marines like I did. Sure they taught you to shoot but now all you do is shoot off your mouth. And, by the way – nobody has been a hippie in about thirty years – while I was in Viet Nam and you were hiding from responsibility. And I doubt you would have the courage to defend anyone from anything. That is why you are calling names and spitting in other people’s milk.
You are a bully and you sound stupid. If you want guns – tell your elected officails you want guns. If someone else does not want guns they can tell their elecvted officials they don’t want guns. Grow a pair – - or sober up – - and calm down, Sir. You are looking and sounding stupid and you are an embarrassment to your family.
You and you goonie friend came her and starting throwing bombs and insulting people. And being the free speech advocates that you are, snicker, you attempted to use legal intimidation to shut people up. So, stuff it up your ass.
Hey, Jim, you big fucking pussy — go fuck yourself. Hiding while you were in Viet Nam? I was in diapers you ex-Marine piece of shit. So go wag your viagra-dependent limp dick elsewhere.
And you act like you are still in diapers. Does your mother know you have such bad manners – I bet you embarrass your whole family. AND you are divorced because you have such a small dick and have to play with guns to get off. Are you even allowed to see your children – or do you even care about them? Man up, asshole
Only children use small retorts such as the phrases that you have just plastered onto the internet.
Just saying.
† .[Sad]. †
p.s.: Before you go off about me being a coward and not fighting any war, remember that I wasn’t even born back then.
And jim, you behave like an ankle-biting wuss.
Sounds like Jim is projecting.
Hiding from responsibility?? He was probably about 5 years old when the Viet Nam war ended, you idiot. lol!
It wouldn’t surprise me if you are lying about being a veteran, too.
So, Jim, why were you hiding from your responsibilities in Desert Storm, ass-munch?
This is Robbie’s blog. He can post anything damn thing he wants here at any time. He doesn’t even have to allow comments from butt nuggets like you. You don’t like what he has to say? Fine, look away. If you were actually a Marine, you must have been a REMF.
But Julie can’t post whatever she wants on her own twitter account? That makes tons of sense.
No one is going over to Julies’ blog, if she has one, or sending her insulting twitter messages, like her friends are doing here, asshole.
It’s hilarious that you moobs are whining about your right to have an opinion while coming here and telling everyone else to shut up and even threatening legal action. Typical liberal hypocrisy!
“We aren’t on the school playground here”
Nope you’re in Robbie’s house. Remember that before you come in and piss on the carpet.
Love it Robbie….only thing is little hippie chicks usually are not cute. I find them to have hairy pits and bad breath. The fucktards that claim to be intellectual superior to those they disagree with can keep them. I for one will carry the firearm of my choice onto many universities where I participate in research collaborations. Cry all they want….the will of the people shall endure.
GOD BLES TEXAS!!!
Oh, man did you see Paul spamming the blog last night? He’s really lost it again. lol!
Who is that guy?
The guy from the UK who had some psych/emotional problems, could not communicate well in his native language, and tried to lecture everyone else on the DP. Now, he is into the life after death video business or something.
O0000h, now I remember Paul.
First time we saw his name in a while.
Did you see his videos?
No, I was up early and saw he had spammed several threads, but didn’t click on them and didn’t really have time to make a decision on whether they should be sent to spam or not. Robbie took care of the issue.
Well, we’ll leave you to your small, flat world and your ultimately short-lived political “victories”. I look forward to seeing the lot of you on the evening news, charged with manslaughter for mistakenly shooting an unarmed civilian you thought was armed and dangerous. Good luck with that.
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo, you wussified libturd infant.
You sound just like that ugly liberal hog Molly Ivins, predicting “blood in the streets” and a return of the “wild west” just before she was destroyed by Jerry Patterson in a debate on this issue. Libturds never change, it is all emotion all the time. For whatever reason you are so terrified of guns and honest citizens, you really should confront those fears, instead of letting them control you.
Don’t try to break into Robbie’s house and you have nothing to worry about. Don’t threaten Robbie with violence, either, and you will be perfectly safe.
By the way — what is your opinion on the level of restriction appropriate for college students seeking abortions, given that they are so irresponsible that they cannot be trusted with a gun? You know, especially since the fetus is unarmed.
Abortions are (supposed to be) administered by board certified and licensed doctors. As long as they are done under the treatment of a medical professional, the current Court rulings and legal prescedent suffice. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate on the campus carry bill.
*snort*
Are grits groceries?
So, you don’t support people defending themselves, but the funded murder of unborn children?
Disgusting.
That makes you an animal.
† .[Sad]. †
Sad,
I support government-licensed, rigorously-trained, medical professionals performing legal medical services for patients as they (doctors and patients) see fit. I don’t believe in amateurs trying to comment on or perform the jobs of professionals, which is why I don’t support CHLs on campuses under the guise of “protecting” themselves or other students. Protection of American citizens in all venues is a job for police and active military to perform. Your attempt to characterize that position as animalistic is what is truly “sad”. You can make whatever narrow-minded moral judgment you would like to about it, but it doesn’t change the law, or the pragmatic reality and social policy that has kept the law solidly in place for 40 years.
To recap what we have learned about JMP, a veritable caricature of a modern liberal, murdering an unborn child is a “woman’s health issue” and lawful citizens shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves, only LE and military should be in the business of protecting us. And Mona Lisa was a man.
So, JMP, how many former LE and military vets do you suppose there are among the 300,000+ CHL holders in this state? How many of that same group of LE/military vets do you suppose are armed at all?
Your problem is you don’t have any confidence in your self and don’t want to assume any responsibility, you want the gubmint to do it all for you. Take personal responsibility, arm yourself. Your life and those around you just might depend on it one day.
While you are at it, read the books of Dr. John Lott and the research of Dr. Gary Kleck.
Yeah, Jeremy, don’t murder non-humans that aren’t born yet. just the grown live ones with children that “deserve” to die; that’s the good, Christian thing to do.
Oh, and the civilians in war zones. It’s their fault for being in a heathen, Godless country when we go there to blow them all to pieces with our awesome, God-given guns.
Slow day at UT Dallas, eh
Anonymous2JMP?That’s right guys, *I’m* the caricature.
Yup!
Ahhh..I see some friends of Julie Gavran..found our happy home. I kind of figured as much when I saw that there was 31 comments on a post that only had about 6 or 8 when I’d last left a few hours ago.
00h-00h…Sean, do you know what we just found out?
The Second Amendment doesn’t REALLY mean what it says.
Ain’t the innernut sumpin’?
*snicker*
Doing what’s right has always been an insurmountable challenge to liberals.
Show a liberal a fact and he will refute it with a fantasy.
Progress In Right To Carry, a graphic illustration.
Well…that was fun.
Your case will be a lot stronger if you don’t admit that you found out about a major national news story by trolling Twitter for people to argue with rather than from the news.
You’d appear less like an idiot if you didn’t try to argue that this was a “major national news story.” It wasn’t. It was a double murder suicide. That it happened in a university parking garage does not make it unique.
It was a headline in the national news (both network and cable). I saw it on three TVs AT ONCE at the gym the day after it happened. Any time anyone gets shot on a college campus it’s a big deal, right? If not, why are y’all so scared about it that y’all need to hide behind your guns? The chance of a campus shooting is so high, we’re all sitting ducks just waiting for the day the rampage happens (and it will happen), right? I’m surprised you’re not rallying around their dead bodies; instead, you’re telling me it’s not a big deal.
You’d appear less like an idiot if you knew what you were talking about before you started insulting people. Google it and see how many news agencies covered it.
Oh, please! Not every one sits and watches television all day. Apparently, you do. Which explains a lot. I have been googling it because until an hour and a half ago, the details were few. And no, it was not some big story. You seem to think the entire world centers around you – it doesn’t.
I don’t think that the point that Two was making, but a nice side-step. The situation was widely broadcast within an hour of it happening, both in the televised and Internet media. And one doesn’t need to sit at home all day and watch television to be informed. Some people are intelligent and talented enough to work full-time jobs, go to school full-time, and still stay informed of current news and events.
That you actually typed that sentence is hysterically funny.
Thanks for the guffaw.
Yeah…I guess I should have waited for the fishwrap to arrive in the morning, or until the 6:00 pm evening news to find out about breaking news…
Are you really this obtuse, or just trying to be a pain in the ass?
Or get the internet at your house…
SJSU identifies the three people who died in garage shooting
By Julia Prodis Sulek
Posted: 05/12/2011 10:18:07 AM PDT
Updated: 05/12/2011 10:29:47 AM PDT
Three killed, including suspect, in shooting at San Jose State University
Two of the three people who died in the San Jose State University parking garage shooting were married, university officials announced this morning.
The three people were identified as Macory Tarlit Caliguiran, 25, a SJSU student; Thomas Kyle Williams, 25, a SJSU student; and Napoleon Lavarias Caliguiran, 54, a non-student.
The Caliguirans were married, university spokeswoman Pat Lopes Harris said in a press conference. University police believe the husband shot his wife and Williams before turning the gun on himself.
Macory Caliguiran and Williams suffered multiple gunshot sounds and were found Tuesday night inside a vehicle, Harris said.
If only every 21-year-old student on campus had a gun with them, they could all have had a shoot out; that way 20 people could be dead instead of just 3.
No, if Macory Tarlit or Thomas Williams had a gun, they might be alive today. Not that you give a shit.
Sorry Anonymous,
I understand the point you’re trying to make, the problem is that you’re really not making it. “They might be alive today” is what we call a “counterfactual”. There is no adequate statistical data to support your claim.
Which would also apply to the comment you made as anonymous2, right?
It would, but I am not Anonymous Two.
Though, I will say that Two’s statement was clearly and obviously intended to be hyperbolic in nature, whereas Anonymous’ was not.
Really?
BTW, I have admin privileges here and can see ip addresses quite clearly.
Maybe you should run back to the office from Allen and make another post as A2 in less than 20 minutes. I might believe you, then.
Well, you’re not a particularly good system administrator. I’m not in Allen. I’m in Fairview, and I’ve been in Fairview all day long.
Allen, Fairview…splitting hairs there JMP2.
Interesting how a2 stopped posting about an hour before you picked up the baton of ignorance.
I sure hope you will come back after the House passes this bill and the Gov. signs it.
You would be infuriating if I took you seriously, no2liberals. Thankfully…
Being worried that Jeremy M. Prince is also me (and then checking the IP addresses to be sure) really smacks of paranoia (which could actually explain a lot about the gun thing, too…). But rest assured, there are two of us and we’re not the same person. I’m way down in south Dallas. I’m sure Jeremy has better things to do than run all over the DFW metroplex so he can surreptitiously post to your blog under different screen names.
You could never infuriate me, JMP, irrespective of how maladaptive your thinking is.
Ah, and here comes the a2 tag-team. Not worried, just observing. South Dallas, eh? That leaves a lot to the imagination. Sure hope you are armed living in that area.
You can’t shoot me….it’s “counterfactual” !!!!!11!!!!!!!
But…but…that’s liable to be libel…actually actionable!
Haha. Thanks Two. Ok, I’m out! I’ve wasted enough time here.
Tah, don’t let the moonbats bite.
no2..I would point something out my friend..A2 at least IS a moonbat. I haven’t made up my mind about Jeremy yet but he’s definitely a liberal.
From what I have seen, they are both moonbats wearing ass-hats.
He’s a nasty liberal. He whines that Gavran has the right to her opinion but tells everyone here that they don’t have the right to theirs. He even goes so far as to make-up false legal claims. What an asshole!
A2? Let me guess..like many others you make the assumption[ Never assume old boy it's the Mother of all fuck ups] that if everyone who was a law abiding citizen could carry a gun..then college campuses would become like the “wild west”. Am I close? Sigh..just goes to show you…how wrong you can be. Go look up “Guntown USA” as it was dubbed by the liberal Massively Stupid Media. Or as it’s more commonly called Kennesaw, Georgia. Take note of the murder rate. not a single one in over 25yrs.
Well the fact of the matter is. God made men but Samuel Colt made them equal.
There is a very logical reason why our Police and Military carry firearms and not pink Boa’s.
And a logical reason why we need The Armed Citizen.
Liberals are so irritating…all they do is bitch bitch bitch…
What an enjoyable read this morning. We get to meet some new enlightened university types that can show us here rednecks how to behave like civilized adults. mr prince sounds like an uber left prof who teaches african studies or some other type of bullshit course. I bet he is a tenured deuche that works about as hard as almost any union thug. Did he really try to argue that several hundred thousand versus several million was the true will of the people? Infucking-credible! I love what the universities have become. Just in the short twenty years i have been out, it is amazing how much further left they have fallen.
Dam Robbie, why the hell didn’t you suit up for a tour in vietnam? We are the same age, I know I was there with my GI Joe and snoopy lunchbox. I am also relieved to know that I was not the only conservative racist redneck that made it into a college but also finished the dance with the highest honors. Just goes to show that some of us rednecks can play the liberal game (telling ass munch proffs what they want to hear) and finishing liberal art pussy courses with high GPA.
But remember every one….you should be very affraid of me, the one that has his fingerprints on file with the state and FBI, the one that takes the time to renew his CHL, the one that follows all the laws that pertain to owning and carrying a firearm. But never mind the the ones who could not care less about the laws, the ones that obtain unlawful weapons, the ones who never intend to protect themselves but intend to hurt others. Backasswards, liberal fucking retards.
GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!