Quote of the Day
They claim to be gun free zones. Well if we know anything about gun-free zones, looking at Australia and Brown, we know that they are not violence free zones. They are only defenseless zones where victims are left hopeless, without any hope of defending themselves.
Sam Farrington
New Hampshire State Representative
December 17, 2025
NH Republicans push to allow guns on college campuses
The response from the anti-gun people is telling:
State Rep. Nicholas Germana, D-Keene, a history professor at Keene State College, said Thursday he wouldn’t feel any safer if people coming on campus were packing firearms.
Any police response to an active shooter on a college campus would be fraught if armed bystanders became involved and crossfire broke out, he said.
“All the sudden police come on that campus and it’s a shootout at the OK Corral,” Germana said. “How do police know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is?”
Feelings and imagination. It is the best they can do. But it is enough to keep them going until they start getting prosecuted and convicted.
The whole Gun Control debate can be summed up by the Uvalde ‘Incident’.
To deny the people the ability to defend themselves and then fail to act when called upon-to the point of physically preventing parents from taking action while they, themselves, failed to do so is the biggest reason this policy is an utter failure.
You must rely on the government to keep you safe. However, this government has no duty nor obligation to do so.
Never assume any policy is a failure. It may have failed its stated purpose, but the people who push for these things aren’t always honest about their stated purposes.
It doesn’t matter how many times the FBI counts up defensive gun uses (DGUs) year-over-year, how many crimes are prevented and lives saved by citizens’ judicious utilization of guns or how many orders of magnitude larger that number is than reported violent crimes, or how many spree killings happen in so-called “Gun Free Zones”. The anti-gun/anti-freedom crowd will always push to ban guns, make CCW more stupidly expensive and legally onerous, and erect more “Gun Free Zones”.
If “safety” and “saving lives” were their goal, one would think they’d abandon what demonstrably doesn’t work and switch gears to support what does seem to work. Instead, they keep pushing for more of the same. The rational conclusion is that their goal is NOT safety or saving lives. (What their actual goal is, is left as an exercise for the reader.)
I would respond to Rep. Germana: why are you afraid of your students? Do you really think that, if you flunk your history students, they’re going to shoot you?
If you want to know how the police can tell a good guy from a bad guy, I suggest that you ask them. They’ll tell you.
Indeed.
Not to be too dark or cryptic or oversimplify the situation, but it is quite simple: If the one they’re shooting at goes down and they stop shooting, that’s a good guy; if the target goes down and they pick a new target, that’s a bad guy.
Alternatively, if they’re carefully aiming, probably a good guy; if they’re shooting more-or-less indiscriminately, probably a bad guy.
If you, as a police officer, challenge them and they stop shooting and put down their gun, probably a good guy; if they instead turn and try to shoot you, bad guy.
Also, in a school/college/university setting: If they’re carrying three or four firearms and a duffle bag that looks heavy, that’s probably a bad guy; if they have one handgun and a normal-looking backpack, probably a good guy.
There, I just wrote the entire police “Target Differentiation in a Mass Shooting Scenario – For Dummies” course syllabus in about 5 minutes. This really isn’t that hard. It just requires using one’s think-pudding in their top-most appendage.
You might think that a history professor would…..know history. Also, he forgot the “T” word-toting.
“You might think that a history professor would…..know history.”
I DID think that, long ago. I have since learned better.
In practice, few of them are “professors of history” these days. Today, most of them seem to be “professors of what-it-would-be-politically-convenient-if-history-was”.
My experience is that few “professors of history” really are.
Most are humanities or social science professors who got roped into reading highlights from a history text during a vacant class slot. (Another giveaway: their teaching schedule is primarily other classes unrelated to history.)
Exactly. My High School US History teacher was the Basketball Coach and his teaching of history was limited to reading highlights out of the book we all were issued at the beginning of the school year. After I broke a finger on my right hand and found that of all the books issued to me that was the one book that hauling it into and out of my locker hurt, I left it at home, which neither hindered each day’s attendance nor my scores on exams.
He wasn’t much of a basketball coach, either, as I recall, although my opinion was second and third hand. .
Pro-2A amendment people really need to prioritize GFZ issues above all else. This is especially true since anti-2A states and cities have weaponized “sensitive places” in the wake of Bruen. It appears that the Supremes will strike down HI law but that is a narrow niche. The big problem is prioritizing property rights over 2A rights especially in the cases like TX where the government has outsourced the criminal law to big box stores.
And the issue in the HI law, as I understand it, is not the presence of “Gun Free Zones”; that’s not the question.
The question is the “Vampire Law” aspect of those “Gun Free Zones”. Normally, a business or facility that is posted as a GFZ is a GFZ, but one that is not posted is not. But in HI, a business or facility that is posted as a GFZ is a GFZ, but one that is not posted is also a GFZ unless you have direct permission from the owner. (It’s known as a “Vampire Law” due to the lore that vampires cannot enter unless invited. Kind of like HI’s GFZs.)
GFZs are not generally being challenged (yet). Just the “Vampire Law” aspect unique to HI gun laws.
So, every business (or facility, whatever THAT is since it isn’t a business) in the state is a GFZ, posted or not, but the unposted GFZ’s are “Imperfect” GFZ’s since the owner can make exceptions of specific people. This law can’t stand. But this is Hawaii, and lawyers and judges (politically connected former lawyers) are involved.
So, every business (or facility, whatever THAT is since it isn’t a business) in the state is a GFZ, posted or not, but the unposted GFZ’s are “Imperfect” GFZ’s since the owner can make exceptions of specific people.
As I understand it, basically, yes. The issue is that under this law, private property that is open to the public (e.g. stores, gas stations, other businesses, etc., where someone can just walk in) defaults to a GFZ, instead of having to explicitly post its GFZ status as is normal for the rest of the nation. Technically, even the posted “perfect” GFZs are imperfect because the owner can always make specific exceptions.
The oral arguments have reportedly been … interesting. The three Leftists are, as usual, trying to complicate and conflate the issue. Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson are continually trying to make it about property rights; that line has been shot down because if this law were implemented in a “First Amendment vs. property rights” context, a campaigner for a political candidate could face a felony charge for approaching your front door unless you specifically exempted that particular campaigner or posted a large, conspicuous sign in your yard saying “Solicitors Welcome”.
The other thing the Leftists have been trying to do (KBJ in particular, which is extremely ironic) is use post-Civil-War “Black Codes” — put in place to keep freedmen disarmed — as “text, history, and tradition” to justify HI’s law. Nevermind that it’s far from a perfect match or analogy, or that those have been found unconstitutional themselves.
(Kavanaugh, to his credit, is reminding the rest that it’s a very simple question: 2A is implicated, and HI has not met its text/history/tradition burden under Bruen. Case closed.)
But it’s instructive as to the lengths to which the Left will go to justify banning guns.
The problem with private property posted as a disarmed victim zone (let’s remember to use the correct term) isn’t that itself — NH has these things. The problem is when the state then makes it a crime to act contrary to the sign.
As I understand it, in NH businesses are free to post signs like that, and if they notice someone is carrying anyway, they can tell the person to leave. That’s the end of the story unless the person refuses (at which point you have a case of trespass). But it isn’t any form of criminal offense, not even worthy of a “traffic ticket” type of thing, to be caught carrying when you’re told you shouldn’t. Some other states (like TX, if I understand correctly) do tie state sanctions to this matter, and that is a bad situation that needs to be fought also.
For this reason I wouldn’t worry much about carrying in local malls, so long as I’m careful to stay out of the food court of one of them — because that part of the mall is in MA.
What Mr. Germana doesn’t want you to think about is the fact that it already is the OK corral in America.
Everybody already has guns. And posting a sign on the edge of town doesn’t change any of that.
And once again the government is trying to disarm everyone. While the real bad guys just do whatever they want.
But if the good guys were carrying also? Chances are it wouldn’t happen in the first place. And if it did it would be over long before the police ever got there.
It is generally the case when citizens respond to a bad guy incident.
But Mr. Germana knows all this already.
He’s just a communist in desperate need of deportation.
(We need to take over Cuba and put his kind to chopping cane for the rest of their days.)
I can shop comfortably in my local grocery store or WalMart knowing at least 3-10 CCW folks are with me.
We are the sheepdogs, protecting the sheep from the wolves.
Wolves want us defenseless.