by Bill Simon
Are you familiar with the expression “comparing apples to oranges?” (If not, phone a friend.)
Because, the arguments I’ve heard regarding the pro-side for allowing students to carry concealed guns on campus to defend themselves, and the anti-side to this right are, literally, apples and oranges.
I am shocked and dismayed to learn that legislators who claim to be all “2nd Amendment” believers, and “I own and shoot guns” kind of folks are actually…kinda ignorant about the relevant components of the actual subject matter.
In a poll released yesterday by Insider Advantage/FOX 5/GAPundit.com, the survey asked 2,613 registered voters how they felt about the Georgia Legislature allowing guns to be carried by students and some other designated individuals on college campuses. These are those results:
a) Favor 31%
b) Oppose 56%
c) No opinion/ Undecided 13%
Now, I am not here to attempt to educate the voting population, but I am here to bring a few facts to light that I know will have a direct impact and relevance on this discussion amongst Republican legislators that, a lot of them, are simply not aware of for some reason.
The Facts About Current Georgia Weapon Permit Laws
1) The minimum age that someone can apply to obtain a carry permit is 21 years old. That is the Georgia State LAW as it exists right now.
2) In order for a permit to be granted, one has to go to their county probate court office to apply. When you apply, you fill-out an application that includes a Social Security#, and you are fingerprinted. You know why you are fingerprinted? Because it is ALREADY required that anyone who wishes to carry a gun concealed in Georgia is subjected to a criminal background check BY THE GBI.
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, if the current minimum age is 21 years of age, then we know by the sheer use of deductive logic that no 15-year old college student, no 16-year-old college student, no 17-year-old college student, no 18-year-old college student, no 19-year-old college student, no 20-year-old college student, and no 20-year and 360-days old college student will EVER be allowed to possess a carry permit, don’t we?
And, permit me to use just an extension of this logic to presume that, on average, this is the “status” of a college student at their respective age:
Freshman: 18 years old
Sophomore: 19 years old
Junior: 20 years old
Senior: 21 years old
So, contrary to the idiocy expressed by college presidents like Georgia Tech President Bud Peterson, in this 2010 interview with Maureen Downey, there won’t be “19,900 college students” in his university that he will have to worry about obtaining a gun permit because any student younger than 21-years of age cannot obtain a concealed permit license in Georgia.
And, contrary to the expressions of ignorance by both some legislators, and a whole bunch of people who don’t have a clue, college senior-level undergraduate students are not as prone to “struggling with new relationships and overwhelming new atmospheres” as the comment at the bottom of that Maureen Downney article cites from Georgia Tech’s SGA President. It’s just a display of absolute ignorance about the current laws in this state.
And, of course, what about the 25-year-old college students? Or, 30-year-old college students? Or, 50-year-old college students?
I have more to discuss…but this is a good place to pose this question for you folks in the Legislature to start pondering an answer to: What is the difference between a 21-year-old college student who is qualified to obtain a carry permit, but not permitted to carry for self-defense on campus as the law currently stipulates, AND a 21-year-old who is not a college student, who is permitted to obtain a carry permit? Ponder that question very, very carefully…
“I am not trying to blame the victims but they aren’t being smart.”
Georgia Tech President Bud Peterson’s comments from that 2010 article provide a harvest of inspiration here on this issue.
I am a graduate of, and I hold a Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering from, Georgia Tech. And, as an alum, this guy ticks me off for several of his comments in this article:
1) Though he couches it, he actually does blame the VICTIMS for them being robbed, raped, assaulted, murdered, etc., because they just weren’t “being smart.” (Really, Bud? It’s the victim’s fault because they are not “smart,” and not the criminal’s fault, eh?)
2) Peterson goes on to claim the following to Downey: “[Peterson] noted that the robberies follow the same pattern: A male Tech student listening to his iPod is walking in the neighborhoods around the campus very late at night and is surprised by someone jumping out of car suddenly and demanding his iPod, cell phone, laptop and wallet. (Crime on campus is actually down, he says. It’s the surrounding area that poses the danger.)”
You know what? When I read THAT statement, I smelled a rat…because what that statement is, is just too simplistic a statement to make, and I believed it to be a mere projection of what someone who thinks they are far superior to what everyone else could possibly thinks, and he recklessly offered that as “proof” of his mentality on crime and victims.
And, it was such a stench that I got a few folks working on research to help me with tracking down exactly what kind of voter this guy is via figuring out his voting record in Georgia.
AND…fellow Republicans, I have proof of exactly what kind of voter he is: He is a Democrat, because he pulled the Democrat ballot in the 2012 Primary (not the PPP, but the General Primary in 2012). The only other time he voted was in the General Election of 2010, and that is because he moved to Georgia in 2009 after he accepted the offer to become Tech’s President. (Go ahead, Mr. Peterson…deny it, so I can roll-out all your voting information as proof).
So, to you self-proclaimed conservative folks in the Legislature, you are all being duped by someone who has a BORN objection to the concept of owning a gun for self-defense (he’s also from the Left Coast, which just adds more evidence to the fire).
Video Testimony of Rape Victim Amanda Collins
Now, to bolster my point (and the point of many people who believe and honor the concept of the 2nd Amendment), I will use the testimony of Amanda Collins, who was raped and she was not ‘listening to her iPod” before the rape. Now, I truly advise you folks to take the time to view her full 12-minute testimony before the Nevada State Legislature in April 2013, because I am going to refer to this testimony several times going forward in this article,and if you have not seen it, you’re not going to understand what I say:
Now, it is pretty clear to me that Amanda Collins was not being “careless” in her walk or if she had her earphones plugged-in and listening to her iPod (as the left-winged Democrat GT College President Bud Peterson proposes all college students do because, in his mind, that’s “…just what they do, they are irresponsible children, and I know this because I’m a college president and I know more than you do, and I can lie to you and get away with it because you think I’m someone to be respected without question…”)
The Facts About Liberals & Guns
Ever wonder why the majority of people who lean left, and/or, are sworn-in blood to be members of the Democratic/Progressive Party, always appear to be the most unhappy, angry-at-the-world, kinda-sorta, really unattractive people?
It’s not because of their genetics necessarily, but mostly because of their mental attitude towards 1) themselves, and 2) then the world reflects back on them how they feel about themselves.
Liberals, by and large, tend to be the ugly, unattractive people, not because of genetics, but because they choose to fill their minds with ugly thoughts about themselves…and then they spend their time projecting what they presume other people are thinking about them. And, thus the cycle of self-loathing tends to affect their outward appearance.
All that thinking does is make one unhappy with themselves, and therefore, they project-out that the world is as ugly a place as they feel their life is, both on physical looks, and mental attitudes…and, they then seek to start changing the world to suit their own “magic vision” of a perfect world where everyone is required to like everyone else, and love everyone else according to rules and laws, and for the “world” to punish people who are better-looking, or who refuse to like and love people the way they think people should like and love people.
Well, it is that concept of “punishment” (or, “just desserts”) that I believe is going on with why liberals (especially, liberal women) are so opposed to allowing college women the tools to protect themselves.
Because liberals love to build a “victim class” of people. They don’t ever really want to solve a problem, they just love to build-up a class of victims to represent, puff themselves up, and give them a purpose in the world.
And, so…in researching this Vine, I came upon this article in Psychology Today, published in 2011: “Is rape about control or sex?”
The article addresses what I’ve long suspected was bunk about the majority of rape incidences on women by an overpowering male. (If you don’t like my conclusions, find a way to rebut the evidence in this article, because Psychology Today is not, by any means, a “right-wing publication.”)
By “majority“, I mean incidents like what Amanda Collins experienced.
The rape against Amanda Collins was not a statutory rape. It was not a date rape. That was a specific type of rape that is, I propose, to be THE most often feared type of rape by most women who are above the age of 18-years old.
What I thought was bunk is the statement I’ve heard from feminists for years that “Rape is not about sex, but about power.”
If so, then why is it called a “sex crime” by police departments and the law? It is called a “sex crime” for a reason: It’s about sex being forced onto someone against their will. Against their permission. Against their consent.
It is about power, but it is about power being used in a sexual act. Just like an armed robbery is about power being used in the commission of a property crime.
“Power” is, for the most part, used in the commission of all crimes against people. So, when someone claims that rape is all about “power,” my response would be, “Yes, and so is every other type of person-on-person crime.”
And…what is intriguing about the Psychology Today article is this revelation: “Symons reviewed forensic evidence showing that victims, as a class, were most likely to be young physically attractive women (as opposed to older, more successful career women). On the other hand, convicted rapists were disproportionately young disadvantaged men whose low social status made them undesirable as dating partners, or husbands.”
Let me excerpt the intriguing part, and why I feel it relates to this campus-carry law: “…young, physically attractive women…” are the ones who comprise of the most targeted class of victims by an aggressor.
Well…do you know who ugly-minded, liberal people hate more than themselves? Those “young, physically attractive women” that they are so jealous of.
When any liberal woman votes against a bill such as HB 512, I will assert that it is because they themselves know who the most targeted class of women are, and it gives them a personal thrill of self-satisfaction that when one of the “pretty ones” gets raped, and is not allowed to defend themselves, the ugly-minded liberal thinks to herself: “Well, Miss Pretty, now let’s see how you feel about yourself now.” In the liberal’s mind, the act of a rape against a “prettier woman” is “the world” equalizing the injustice they feel about themselves.
Liberal, ugly-minded women love it when the “attractive women” (who are “attractive,” more so for the way they personally feel about themselves, and how they concentrate thinking about themselves in positive, attractive ways) are raped and assaulted. Why else would they oppose allowing a woman, any woman, the means to protect herself?
So, looking at the vote-count of those voting Y or N in the 2013 State House session for HB 512, one can recognize the names of all the Democrats who voted against this bill, and conclude that they are actually more interested in ensuring that no “pretty woman” will ever have the chance to defend herself with something like legally carrying a concealed handgun (especially since she will be 21 years of age or older) to use to defend her body and her life against an aggressor…because, in their ugly-pattern of thought-process, they want those “pretty women to get some justified desserts” to, somehow, equalize their concept of an “unfair world.”
The Financial Cost of Protecting One’s Life
There is a “demand” by someone on the anti-carry side to require that every student who wants to carry concealed on a college campus in Georgia to take a “safety course” before being allowed to carry on campus.
Is there anything in Georgia law now that requires a “safety course?” No. Because, the “right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.”
Back to my question way back, is there a difference between a 21-year-old college senior who is licensed to carry concealed, and a 21-year old who is not attending college who obtains a carry permit?
And, the answer is “NO.” No difference at all. As Amanda Collins points out in her testimony, this “arbitrary line” that defines a college campus’s boundaries doesn’t really translate to any kind of “safer zone” than anywhere beyond the college campus.
Let me present to you that there is a financial cost to buying a gun for personal protection, and I actually interpret Bud Peterson’s (and the Board of Regents and other college presidents) demand for a “safety course” to be a subversive way to prevent college students, who ARE already on very tight financial budgets, to slow-down their ability to legally carry on campus.
Here are financial costs already in place:
1) The cost of obtaining a carry-permit: Ranges from $75 to $100 (or so) in every county in Georgia.
2) The cost of acquiring the actual gun to defend oneself: $300-$500
3) Ammunition: Around $1 per round.
4) Holster: $15-$50.
5) Range time to practice shooting: About $20-$30, including range time and practice rounds. (More if you wish to rent one of their guns to practice).
So, when one proposes a “safety course” for a student to be required to take first, how much is this “safety course” going to cost? Is it about “safety” or, is it more about tax and fee revenue…and making sure another hurdle is placed to prevent a student from defending him/herself?
Because, I will propose to you that unless you put a cap of something like $15 on the maximum cost for a “safety course,” then you are, actually, trying to directly impede someone’s right to defend themselves.
You folks in the Legislature had better have a maximum cap of a very low amount so that cash-strapped college students don’t have to choose between defending their life, and saving-up food money to pay for an exhorbitantly-priced “safety course.”
And, when we have an example like, say, Georgia State University, when the age of the average student (because it is an urban campus that a lot of working people attend) is, perhaps, 25 years old, do you folks actually think that 25-year-old college student is less “responsible” than a 25 year-old non-college student who is carrying concealed?
The right to keep and bear arms is both a U.S. Constitutional right, and a Georgia Constitution right. The “power to decide” whether a 21+ year-old student is allowed to carry on campus should not be left up to college presidents…because the Constitution supersedes what self-important college presidents want.
And…whoever you are, if you vote against this bill, I am going to assume that you, actually (whether you are a male or a female, a Republican or a Democrat), are, yourselves, in the parking garage, standing in the vicinity of the rape taking place, observing the rape of a woman on a college campus (like, say, another woman like Amanda Collins), standing right next to the rapist, protecting that rapist’s life by prohibiting that woman, who is 21-years of age or older, from legally carrying a concealed weapon to defend her life and body against a male aggressor intent on having brutal, forced sex with her.
THAT is who you are who oppose this bill in any way, shape, or manner.
Well, you and Bud Peterson, of course, as that is what he, as a left-winger, wants to have happen on his campus. Peterson, like all liberals, wants the rapist to be successful. He, like all liberal-minded people, loves to build the victim class to be as large as possible. It is what is in the liberal DNA.
The right to keep and bear arms is there in the Constitution because, along with having a right to life, people have a right and a duty to protect their own lives against people who intend to do them harm.
As the Website ConcealedCampus.org points out, “Self-Defense is a Human Right.”
NO college president can possibly ever prevent every life-threatening criminal act against their campus’s students, regardless of how many cops they hire, regardless of how much lighting is on campus, etc.
And, if you want to become better informed about the risks that students on campuses all over the U.S. face, take a gander at this list of crimes attempted against students by criminals.
While crime on campuses in Georgia may be rare, it doesn’t matter. Seconds count…unless you folks want more cases of “Amanda Collins” to occur in Georgia…because, even if it occurs just once, once is too many times if it occurs against a student who would have wanted a gun to protect him/herself.
As Amanda Collins states at the end of her testimony, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”
In closing, I suggest you Review Collins’ testimony again here: Amanda Collins’ Testimony, and let me know if you would rather have more victims like her in your mind.