More ignorance on the gun front, this time from Clemson U.

Clemson Paper Holds Drawing To Raise Gun Rights Awareness

If you watch the video that goes with it, you see a student stating “Like, the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Revolutionary War, because they like needed guns to defend themselves.”

Please, pleeease tell me that students are not learning that at Clemson. That is, by far, the most asinine argument that I have ever heard, mostly because the 2nd Amendment was passed in 1790, a full 7 years after the Revolution ended and 9 years after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. He obviously didn’t learn jack in history.

Basically, the objection comes down to “OMG it’s an AK-47 it’s black and scary”. I say that because other weapons are given away with no fanfare whatsoever, some of which are far more powerful than an AK-47 with the same features (semi-automatic operation being the big one). Of course, the winners all have to pass background checks, but that’s not mentioned in the article. That little nugget is appended to the very end of the video.

Ignorance of the law is never a good thing, and this doesn’t break any new ground in that respect, but c’mon, this is a reputable university. Don’t these students have any understanding of the law? The student running the drawing doesn’t seem to think so, and his fellow students have seemingly proven him correct.

They’re being taught that long before they’re ever old enough to attend Clemson.

Which is what the 1994 so-called Assault Weapons Ban was all about. It was the ‘black and scary gun ban’.

Because all they’re taught from the time they’re small is the Brady Bunch version of the facts. Which is why when I was in an Argument and Rhetoric class at Pitt, I hammered the person who did the ‘affirmative’ side of the gun control debate with my well-researched rebuttal. I had facts, and he had Brady Bunch fantasies.

Good for them. From the student responses, it’s pretty clear that some education about the second amendment is a good thing.

I can tell you that Andrew Davis, the organizer of the gun giveaway, is apparantly a real charming guy.

In the article, he goes on to say he didn’t really mean it. I don’t care about the gun thing one way or the other, but this clown’s an asshole.

Ah, the AK-47. When you absolutely positively got to convince every motherfucker in the room of the need for a complete understanding of civil rights. Accept no substitutes.

Damn. The raffle just ended. I was kinda hoping to enter. It would go nice with my AR15.

This just in from the Irony Department–the raffle is over and no one wants the gun.

If they don’t want it I’ll take it.

Rats, can I get in line, in case you have a crisis of conscience, AD? I could actually start collecting guns.

You can have it, my friend! You weren’t crazy the last time I checked. :smiley:

Doors, my friend, you’ve got me scratching my head again.

  1. Clemson University is in rural upstate South Carolina. I’ve been there for math stuff, back in another lifetime. IIRC, it draws most of its student body from upstate, and that’s definitely pro-gun territory, even more than SC as a whole, which is saying a great deal. I don’t think you (or catsix) have cause to raise a ruckus about what they’re being taught, unless you’ve both joined Handgun Control, Inc. when I wasn’t looking.
  2. The drawing itself is being run by a pro-gun-rights guy, for purposes of promoting those rights.
  3. There were two or three students who responded on the videotape. One of them, the one you cite, was a real idiot. No doubt about it.
  4. Any issue, no matter what, where, or when, is going to have idiots on both sides. Especially if we’re sampling from a college campus.

In short, I don’t see what you’re complaining about. Before I watched the video, I fully expected from your OP that the drawing must’ve been run by some gun-control supporters who were trying to make some bizarre bassackwards point by raffling off an AK-47. Instead, I find that this thread’s about the one guy who diverged from pro-gun orthodoxy - and hell, he was even helpful to the gun-rights cause, because his reasons were so pathetically absurd.

Or maybe the OP was in line with the Google ad, which at the moment is for “Humor Writing Workshops - Work with a humor writing pro in acclaimed online workshops.” If so, consider me whooshed.

It sounds like they skimmed “The Moron’s Guide to the Second Amendment,” but the student was right in that the experience of the Revolutionary War was what gave us the second amendment. It was designed to make sure the population was sufficiently well-armed to prevent government tyranny. The student might have been trying to say that we no longer feel the need to have that last check on the government.

catsix is mainly raising a ruckus (if I’m raising one at all) over the idiocy in the statement that the Second Amendment only applies to the Revolutionary War since people then needed guns to defend themselves.

I was also careful to specify that kids are taught that way of thinking long before they’re ever in college anywhere.

I have no problem at all with a college student or a group of college students wanting to educate the public on the issue of firearms rights, as long as they do so in an intelligent and responsible manner.

I related my own experience from college regarding a debate class and making the rebuttal to the affirmative position on the topic ‘Resolved: Gun Control Should Be Stricter.’

I started out with a room full of U Pitt college students who hated guns, and by the end of it, I had at least a couple of them willing to reconsider.

Let’s run tape (yawn):

If you want to say that what you said isn’t quite what you meant, that’s fine.

But what you said was that Clemson students are learning ‘that’ (what the idiot on the video said) long before they’re old enough to attend Clemson. That’s by and large false.

And good luck, either of you, in finding this in what the idjit actually said. You’re both making shit up.

In the fight against ignorance, you’re both going over to the other side in this instance.

You’re the one with the fantasies this time, I’m afraid.

So you mean elementary and middle school students from all over the country are not taught that the Second Amendment applies to muskets and men in white powdered wigs?

They’re not given the idea that the only legitimate uses of guns today are for hunting and competitive target shooting?

You were also wrong to say that I claimed that idiot in the video learned such views about the Second Amendment at Clemson.

Oh yeah? Why does this, out of all the gun auction/raffle/drawings in the country, make the papers? Because it’s an AK-47. If it had been a semi-automatic Ruger rifle it wouldn’t have been a big deal. The person who chose the weapon to be auctioned knew that it was going to inflame people. That’s what AK-47s do. You see one and right away you associate it with all kinds of negative things. It’s distinctive, it’s Russian (evoking the Evil Empire), and it’s military.

People are unreasonably afraid of weapons like this. It was chosen for a very specific purpose. Why do you think the winners rejected it, saying “he doesn’t plan to accept the AK-47, because he doesn’t want that kind of gun”?

It’s just a semi-automatic rifle, same as any other. Why are people therefore unwilling to accept it? Because it has a stigma, and guns with a stigma are referred to as ugly black guns because that’s generally what they have in common.

It’s not making stuff up, it’s making a logical inference, one that has been made over and over and has withstood the test of time.

So you’re saying that they DO learn it in college? They have to learn it somewhere. It either happens early or it happens late. In the first case catsix is right, and in the later case the university should be embarassed by how bad that student made them look.

Look, if you want to say you really meant “elementary and middle school students from all over the country,” that’s fine with me.

But you’re becoming one of those people who forget that I can see what you said upthread, and you were referring specifically to what Clemson students had been taught when they were growing up. And while Clemson, like any large university, includes a scattering of students from everywhere, the bulk of their students are from South Carolina, primarily upstate South Carolina. So it is incorrect to equate ‘elementary and middle school students from across the country’ with ‘the elementary and middle school students from 5-15 years ago who would be Clemson students in 2006.’

These are very different groups of people, and certainly have very different typical elementary and middle school experiences.

If I had said that, I would have been wrong.