Gun Rights

CORRECTED! Don't Bring a Dildo To an Anti-Gun Fight?

Texas gun-control advocates to protest open CONCEALED carry on college campuses by brandishing unregistered phalluses.

|

CORRECTION: Thanks to Jon Lech, who noted that the Texas "campus carry" law discussed does not allow open carry of guns on public college campuses. Rather, it allows for the concealed carry of weapons.

The annual convention of the Modern Language Association (MLA), which brings together thousands of English and literature professors and grad students, is taking place this weekend in Austin, Texas.

MLA is among the most-politicized academic organizations, routinely pushing for resolutions on all sorts of issues. Last year, for instance, members of the group pushed for a boycott of Israeli universities because of their government's treatment of Palestinians. The resolutions for and against any action were ultimately shelved for consideration until 2017, which would might give members a chance to repeal the group's 2002 resolution declaring, "the MLA condemn boycotts and blacklists against scholars or students on the basis of nationality, ethnic origins, and religious background as unfair, divisive, and inconsistent with academic freedom." For a list of resolutions the group has passed over the years, go here.

Because the Texas legislature passed a law last year allowing the open carry the concealed carrying of guns on public-college campuses in the Lone Star State beginning in 2017, a group of protesters attending the MLA convention are planning a protest involving an object that they say is still illegal to brandish on the state's campuses: Dildos.

From Scott Jaschik's account at Inside Higher Ed:

"The State of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it does have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence. You would receive a citation for taking a dildo to class before you would get in trouble for taking a gun to class," [explains the Facebook page of the group Campus (DILDO) Carry]. (This is based on a university regulation barring conduct that would violate state law on obscenity.)

Jessica Jin, who graduated from UT last year, said via email that idea came from her outrage over Friday's shootings at two universities. "I was sitting in traffic yesterday listening to a discussion on public radio about the morning's school shootings. I felt a lot of frustration at those who were still trying to explain away, or make excuses for, this repeated pattern of violence and said to myself, 'Man, these people are such dildos.' I couldn't believe that people could still sit there and defend their own personal gun ownership while watching families mourn the loss of their children."

She said she then did some research and discovered that "it is indeed against UT policy to wave dildos around campus," and that, after that, "I just couldn't help myself."

Update: Given that the gun law in question involves concealed carrying of guns and not open carrying, the dildo protest seems a bit unsymmetrical, especially since the law covering display of sex toys is linked to public obscenity, not possession per se. It's easy to imagine campus left-wingers taking great offense if, say, a fraternity ordered pledges to strap dildos and walk around campus during pledge week. Having said that, I would defend unto something short of death anybody's right to conceal-carry just about anything they want on campuses or off.

The dildo protest will be joined by a more-sedate one, featuring MLA attendees who 

will gather at one of the convention hotels for a rally. Then they will march to the Texas Capitol, and instead of carrying weapons, they will carry books. When they reach the statehouse, they will use books to build "a symbolic gun exclusion zone," and standing in that structure, they will read texts that they have discussed in their classes and that they believe need to be taught in gun-free zones.

This protest will be headlined by Roland Greene, the current president of the MLA, who told Inside Higher Ed's Jaschik:

"What book of any force in the culture should we be reading in the presence of guns?" he said. "Our members are in the business of provoking discussion. Learning to give voice to an unpopular opinion, to challenge a consensus and to disagree constructively and respectfully is an essential part of education. We believe that guns discourage that kind of learning."

Read more here.

The "campus carry" law specifically allows colleges to carve out gun-free zones on their campuses, so it's unlikely that Texas professors will be faced with heavily (or rather, openly) armed students in classrooms or office hours.

Greene and other critics of open-carry laws might take the time to drive north a few hours to Dallas and visit with the members of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, which is named after the Black Panther activist who famously engineered an open-carry demonstration in Sacramento, California during the 1960s. The leader of the group, Charles Goodson, makes the case for "armed self-defense as it relates to the situation with black people here in America when it comes to dealing with police departments." In the video below, his voice is joined by that of historian Thaddeus Russell, who notes, "One of the great untold stories about the civil rights movement was that it required violent resistance from blacks to be effective."

Which isn't to say anything directly about whether it's a good or bad thing to allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry on college campuses (non-law-abiding citizens, of course, have always carried wherever they want). But the politics of guns and gun control are much more varied and interesting than most MLA members probably understand.

Watch now:

In 2005, I reported from the MLA convention, which was held in Washington, D.C. that year and was chock full of interesting ideas, people, and panels. Read my dispatches herehere, and here.

NEXT: Yes, Ted Cruz is a 'natural born citizen'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A long time ago in Playboy there was a comic where a sailor was calling down into the hold of a wooden sailing ship saying, “Dr. Doolittle, I thought you only talked to the animals.”

  2. “it is indeed against UT policy to wave dildos around campus,”

    I’m pretty sure that’s true for guns as well.

    1. Rock out with your Glock out!

  3. I get it. The only reason to carry a gun is because you have a small penis.

    1. There’s also irrational fear of foreigners and Rambo fantasies of taking on the US military. But yeah it’s mainly about the penis.

      1. Once again, proof that liberals have no idea how anyone else’s brain functions.

  4. brings together thousands of English and literature professors and grad students

    If McDonald’s and Walmart don’t set up a job fair there, they’re missing an opportunity.

    1. Even McDonald’s and WalMart have standards.

  5. Gun exclusion zone.

    1. The best way to troll them would just be to carry a weapon (as openly as the law permits) and walk into the zone. Don’t say or do anything else.

  6. So they are going to finally pull them out of their ass and start waving them around?

    1. *enthusiastic consent applause*

  7. How many shooting have there been on campuses with CC? Just wondering…

    1. None. Though several shooting have been stopped by people with a CC.

      1. Unpossible. Only police stop crimes. CCW holders are like so many Manchurian candidates waiting to slaughter babies. And puppies.

        1. There was a CCW holder at the Gabby Gifford shooting who didn’t pull his weapon in the confusion. Thus CCW holders can never use their gun defensively. QED.

          1. Vague recollection that he didn’t pull it because of the mayhem and the crowd and couldn’t see getting off a clean shot.

            Contrast with cops, who would have perforated any number of “civilians” shooting into the crowd.

            1. Yup. Funny how the guy acting responsibly is used as an argument against concealed carry.

          2. He ran out of Safeway and pulled his weapon. He did not have a clear, safe shot. Unlike most cops, he did not start firing randomly.

            1. or, What R C said

            2. He ran out of Safeway and pulled his weapon. He did not have a clear, safe shot. Unlike most cops, he did not start firing randomly.

              Acutally, no…he never drew his weapon. He put his hand on it and disengaged the safety, but he never drew.

          3. In my CCW class I was told I have the right to protect myself or my family. The use of deadly force doesn’t necessarily protect me to protect others. When a good guy with a gun does stop a bad guy with a gun the police state they are investigating to see if they can/should press charges on the good guy.

            1. It depends on your jurisdiction. Texas does allow defense of third party.

  8. “Learning to give voice to an unpopular opinion, to challenge a consensus and to disagree constructively and respectfully is an essential part of education. We believe that guns discourage that kind of learning.”

    the fact that they don’t understand the hypocrisy of their reasoning says it all. they want to let people have unpopular opinions, and respectful disagreements… as long as the opinions match theirs.

    1. There are actually academics – some of them friends of mine – who believe that allowing weapons on campus will result in angry [white, male] students, pulling out guns in their offices and demanding they be given better grades.

      1. God, everyone knows it’s the Asians that you need to look out for (Southern and Eastern).

        1. A friend of mine lived next to Biswanath Halder before he shot up PBL. He said he was obviously, disturbingly, crazy.

    2. Actions speak louder than words. They don’t want to be constructive and respectful. They want to crush any dissent (“can I get some muscle over here”). If their enemies are armed, that means THEY will have to be respectful to people obviously guilty of wrongthink.

      1. To clarify, I’m not suggesting a gun owner would use it to threaten someone in an academic setting. I’m talking about the anti-gunner’s point of view.

        1. More projection. They have fantasized about sticking a gun in somebody’s face, and believe (perhaps with good reason) that if they ever had a gun, that’s exactly what they’d do.

          Ergo, since everybody else must be as weak and depraved as they are . . . .

          1. Who hasn’t lost their temper and killed someone over a parking space, amirite ?

            1. How many times does that happen where the person already in the parking space could be armed?

    3. “Learning to give voice to an unpopular opinion, to challenge a consensus and to disagree constructively and respectfully is an essential part of education”

      Whoa whoa whoa… I’ve been assured that if there’s a consensus on something, it’s the undeniable truth and that anyone who challenges the sacred consensus is an anti-science nutjob who can be safely ignored.

  9. Talk about a trigger warning! Are they loaded? Will they shoot?

  10. I’m just glad that the anti-gun crowd has finally stopped pretending their arguments have any more legitimacy than a fart joke.

  11. I was sitting in traffic yesterday listening to a discussion on public radio about the morning’s school shootings. I felt a lot of frustration at those who were still trying to explain away, or make excuses for, this repeated pattern of violence and said to myself, ‘Man, these people are such dildos.’ I couldn’t believe that people could still sit there and defend their own personal gun automobile ownership while watching families mourn the loss of their children.”

    And yet there you are, you heartless bitch.

  12. “What book of any force in the culture should we be reading in the presence of guns?”

    The Qu’ran?

      1. I met him a few times at Alumni events.

    1. SF’ed the link, BTW.

  13. I remember that ad for those Eldridge Cleaver pants. I feel old.

    1. In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto “for practice” and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was “an insurrectionary act”.

      But we must wipe Bill Cosby from our collective memory, like the priests of Amun did to call cartouches with the heretic Akhenaten’s name.

      1. That’s because Cosby was just raping women to get his rocks off. If you’re raping (or murdering or stealing or any other violent crime) in furtherance of progressive political goals (only progressive goals) that’s apparently A-OK. Probably because something something… “punching up”… mumble mumble… “systemd of oppression”… DERP!

        1. The irony being that Cleaver would eventually convert to Mormonism and become a conservative Republican.

          1. But even (perhaps especially) during his Black Panther Party days, he was in favor of gun rights.

      2. Don’t be TOO critical of Eldridge Cleaver. After he had a bellyful of his comrades over in Algeria he returned to the United States (I fantasize that he had a pair of headphones on as his plane landed, playing Chuck Berry’s “Back in the USA” full blast) and became a free-market entrepreneur, selling his invention, an updated codpiece. It was a bust, but his heart and mind had finally gotten right.

  14. Wait. What? Um…. What?

    1. The ad is like 40 years old.

  15. I hate to give anything Epi says any support, but holy shit, these people truly are animsts. They literally believe that guns contain evil spirits that make ordinary people into murderers.

    1. Desparate times, Wartster, desperate times…

  16. The progs actually think they were making some sort of useful statement by doing this. They really, really do. Some prog friends were publicly preening about this recently; they couldn’t accept that anyone might see that as stupid, annoying and unhelpful. Of course, those same people referred to the open carriers as “mass shooting re-enactors.”

    Yeah, I need new friends.

    1. *pours whiskey, slides it over to Tonio*

    2. It’s all about the supremacy of FEELZ, I think. These people feel that allowing guns on campus is outrageous and unacceptable, so they respond by doing something that they think their opponents would feel is outrageous and unacceptable. Pointing out that this doesn’t actually make any sense just indicates that you lack the FEELZ and are therefore on Team Wrong.

  17. “Given that the gun law in question involves concealed carrying of guns and not open carrying, the dildo protest seems a bit unsymmetrical, especially since the law covering display of sex toys is linked to public obscenity, not possession per se.”

    They’re just creating a spectacle for the media’s benefit.

    You can’t control what the media says about any topic, but you can make them talk about your topic by giving them a spectacle to take pictures of and talk about–and that’s what they’re doing here.

    Most people will understand the dildo spectacle as being generally anti-gun. Just like most people understand the Bundy spectacle in Oregon to be pro-gun (regardless of how its intended meaning). I wish we libertarians were better at creating these sorts of spectacle ourselves.

    For every “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, there are hundreds of lefty spectacles driving the news.

  18. Jessica Jin, who graduated from UT last year

    So you know she’s really worldly and sophisticated…

    I couldn’t believe that people could still sit there and defend their own personal gun ownership while watching families mourn the loss of their children.”

    So, because some families have to tragically mourn the loss of their children everyone else should give their personal right to defend themselves. Also, she seems to be implying that you can’t be sympathetic to families mourning the loss of their children while simultaneously defending the right to own a gun for self defense (or any other purpose). Perhaps one of her college professors should have taught her the meaning if the term “false dichotomy.” I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Jessica Jin is a moron. Hopefully she’s at least hot because that’s probably all she’ll ever have going for her.

      1. Not bad, but I don’t think I could stand being in a room with her for more than 2 minutes based on her twitter drivel.

      2. She mentions a hashtag of cocksnotglocks. The obvious answer is, “Why not both?”, since I have no idea what they have to do with each other beyond the fact that I have three times as many of one as the other.

        1. It must be hard to shop for pants.

          1. Let’s just say that the fashionable design in the ad photo above is out of the question.

    1. I couldn’t believe that people could still sit there and defend their own personal gun car ownership while watching families mourn the loss of their children.

      I know, its a cliche, but sometimes things get to be cliches for a reason.

  19. “What book of any force in the culture should we be reading in the presence of guns?” he said. “Our members are in the business of provoking discussion. Learning to give voice to an unpopular opinion, to challenge a consensus and to disagree constructively and respectfully is an essential part of education. We believe that guns discourage that kind of learning.”

    The implication being that some gun toting (probably) teabagger might flip out and start shooting at people after hearing an idea they disagree with. Even though it seems lately like the people screeching the loudest when confronted an opinion they disagree with are proggie douchenozzles. Project much? What a shithead.

  20. “Learning to give voice to an unpopular opinion, to challenge a consensus and to disagree constructively and respectfully is an essential part of education.”

    Oh, so now the progs believe in freedom of speech. I wonder what brought that on, all of a sudden.

    1. The first and second amendments can be seen hanging out in the most unlikely places.

  21. Prog: “If you’re gonna carry guns around, then we’re gonna carry dildoes. See how you like that!”
    Libertarian: “That’s fine.”

    1. Should the second or first amendment apply to dildoes too? Will the state government issue CCW for penis shaped objects? Will open dildo carry be legal? Will Feinstein and Hillary try to ban big scary black “asault” dildoes too? Joe biden could push his wife to have a double dildo for when she is home alone….
      What happens to the guy open carrying a dildo in a crowded theater?

    2. I would so think too.

  22. That argument can be summed up:

    False dichotomy
    Logic could be applied to cars, computers, knives, pools anything really
    Implies guns have a mind of their own

  23. Do these folks really want to assert a constitutional right to keep and bear dildos?

  24. What is it with gun-banners and dicks?

  25. Hey Jessica, please clarify for me the following. Which peole are “dildos”? Seems to me that it would be the anti gun,anti gun rights folks.

  26. Have you registered your assault dildo?

  27. “This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.