Gun Tweet of the Day: Isn’t It Enough Edition


Emily Walton is a political activist. The Boise State University grad’s been campaigning to prevent Americans from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on Idaho college campuses. Ms. Walton recently testified in front of the House Committee considering the bill (testimony text after the jump). Her argument: nobody wants it. Yes, well, what about this from “There are 367 registered sex offenders living within a three mile radius of Boise State’s campus, according to the Central Sex Offender Registry of  Idaho. This currently includes 19 students enrolled at Boise State who are registered sex offenders.” Isn’t that enough to justify concealed carry for someone? And if so, why should their rights be denied? Just wondering . . .

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Emily Walton I live in Boise and I graduated from Boise State last year.

This is my second time testifying in your committee. The last time I testified before your committee was three years ago when I was a student who testified against a similar bill. So I went online to find the quote in the paper for exactly what I said back then: “I don’t think that guns belong on a school campus, concealed or un-concealed. … It would add more tension to our campus. I think it would alter the atmosphere and I don’t want that. Students are not asking for this to happen. …. Honestly, we think it’s crazy.”

While my main point is the same as last time I was here I do have a few more things to add to my testimony.

In the last few days I got to work with student associations from all over Idaho and we were able to build a coalition – the Coalition to Keep Guns Off Campus, which is made up of students, student associations, professors, parents and community members. And yesterday we had a peaceful, lawful protest against this bill on the steps of the capitol that drew about 300 students and faculty.

And here is what some of the members are wondering – and what I want to add to my testimony.

1. Isn’t it that enough that the Presidents of each and every one of Idaho’s Colleges and Universities oppose this bill.

2. Isn’t it enough that several faculty senates from Idaho Colleges and Universities have gone on the record opposing this bill?

3. Isn’t it enough that the Idaho State Board of Education opposes this bill?

4. Isn’t it enough that the Idaho Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement oppose this bill?

5. Isn’t it enough that student representatives from student associations – (who are elected from the student body to represent students) oppose this bill?

Who would you like us to bring in here?

There isn’t one education stakeholder in Idaho who supports this bill.

Please vote against it.


  1. avatar scooter says:

    Rule by the elite, huh? Only those in position of authority and power are named.

    1. avatar DQ says:

      Its the same logic as “jumping off the bridge because everyone else did it.” Its best to think about consequences of each action instead of following the band wagon blindly. Even if she didn’t want to think, it doesn’t take alot of work looking at states that allow campus carry like Utah and see what the stats are in regards to crimes committed on with guns campus by legal owners.

  2. avatar Tominator says:

    For the most part I’m not afraid of sex offenders….half the guys I grew up with would be in jail or registered if in today’s world….come on be honest here.

    I’m more afraid of our government and academia that believe’s they are some sort of god.

    1. avatar Jack Brown says:


      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Peeing on the side of a building can get you on the sex offenders list. COMMENT MODERATED

        1. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

          I think he’s probobly saying most of the guys he grew up with participated in sex with “minors” e.g. 18 year old dood haveing consensual sex with a 17 year old woman.

        2. avatar lolinski says:

          That almost messed things up for Hank Moody, makesme glad that the age of consent is 16 in Norway.

      2. avatar Tominator says:

        Jack. I understand your views, but the states cannot even decide what a ‘child’ is. What is perfectly and legally correct in one state is a felon in another. Yes, I’m talking about teens and not adult-child.

        If you think your 14 year old girl is not dwelling on sex much of the time, thanks to our culture, and desiring of an older ‘man,’ then you are blind.

        My 10 year old niece was at a loss on how to describe Miley Cirus antics….I said SLUT…she pointed a finger at me and shook her head yes. Society bombards our children with sex…sex…and more SEX….and then many get judged by morals of days gone by. The Liberals are after more than our 2ND Amendment rights! The sad truth is that they are winning.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          So because there’s no perfect age of consent and everything is somewhat arbitrary we shouldn’t even bother defining it? Bull. Because as much as that 14 year old might want to get drilled, she ain’t forcing you. The only reason we need to get into that conversation is if fathers are allowed to murder anyone who touches their 14 year old if they object.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “So because there’s no perfect age of consent and everything is somewhat arbitrary we shouldn’t even bother defining it?”

          How about, whenever its parents deem it ready to fly the nest?

        3. avatar Erin says:

          @Hannibal. Typical armchair dad. “Touch my daughter, I keel you.” How about actually teaching your daughter what’s right and wrong instead of demonizing boys for being boys. Nobody is advocating rape or older men coercing children. Reverse the roles. If you had a boy, would you cheer him on in his teenage years when he brags about having a girlfirend?

    2. avatar Irony says:

      “Sex offender” Is a job works program , not a charge.

      Like ” Drug charge” a few years back, sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes political, and, however in this case, it’s just used to fuel hysteria.

      Please R.F. stop using the tactics of the of the left. You giving simple comfort to our enemies

      1. avatar Erin says:

        Show me the private, alone time of any individual and I’ll show you a potential sex offender.

  3. avatar peirsonb says:

    There isn’t one education stakeholder in Idaho that supports this bill

    Except, you know, students and taxpayers. But what do they know.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      So she’s claiming/admitting that “not one education stakeholder in Idaho” is willing to support or defend The Constitution of the United States of America? That’s a scary proposition.

    2. avatar Bruce L. says:

      If nobody wants this bill, then nobody will carry when it passes. So she shouldn’t have any problem with it passing.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        Easy Bruce, logic apparently has no place in these high level discussions.

    3. avatar Jacob says:

      She should have said “Shareholder”, then it would have been a true statement.

  4. avatar anonymouse says:

    I wonder how she would feel if they were restricting her first amendment rights to speak out, testify, tweet, and create meme’s. If I decide I don’t want your free speech, who do I have to bring for them to vote against it? All rights or none.

    1. avatar Jacob says:

      I’m sure that most of those stake holders (read: shareholders) in education would be for restricting the individual student’s ability to speak out against school policy and regulations. Guaranteed.

  5. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    I still can’t believe that so many people seem completely oblivious to the fact that just because something is illegal doesn’t mean people don’t do it. She seems to be under the impression that there is not a single firearm being carried on campus anywhere in the state because, you know, it’s illegal, and everyone knows it’s physically impossible to violate laws….

    1. avatar Maineuh says:

      Exactly this. Why is that so goddamn hard to grasp?

    2. avatar bob says:

      +1. pot and drugs and under age drinking is illegal but you know it is going on. you would think a woman would want the ability to defend herself.

      1. avatar dsreno says:

        She doesn’t have to defend herself. That’s what the police are for. Besides, rape, assault, and theft are all illegal on campus, so she doesn’t have to worry about any of those things happening.

        If they allowed guns on campus, all of those other crimes would skyrocket. It’s the guns that cause crime – everybody knows that.

        /sarcasm so bad it hurts

  6. avatar Noishkel says:

    Yeah. They didn’t allow guys at Virginia Tech and the Appalachian school of law. How did that gun free policy work out for you?

  7. avatar Don says:

    1. There are already guns on your campus.

    2. There always has been.

    3. GoTo 1.

    1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

      This is the list that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends….

  8. avatar cubby123 says:

    Why don’t you ask Amanda Colins , who was raped by a predator on UN Reno campus 30 ft from campus police.James Biela went on to kidnap rape and murder Brianna Dennison.Amanda had a CCW license but could nt carry on campus.

    1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      I know some female antis who think that under no circumstances should you shoot the attacker, because they are just misunderstood blah blah blah……

      No joke, its disgusting.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        If they’re so intent on learning about a “misunderstood” rapist their (the rapist’s) funeral can be a prime resource.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Gun Control: The theory that a woman found found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

        And the article doesn’t draw any connection between her and that arm poster thing, unless that tweet. Anyway, the arm poster is essentially advocating for a return to the law of the jungle. Yes, my pistol is to compensate for my inadequacy! Duh!

    2. avatar dsreno says:

      Amanda had a concealed firearms permit, but chose to follow the law. If she was allowed to carry, she might have been able to stop that monster and prevent the atrocities that he later committed.

      The latest campus carry bill in Nevada died in committee. There will be another try in 2015, but there is standing opposition by officials in the system of higher education and university police. Those people rub plenty of elbows with lawmakers, so I have pretty low hopes 🙁

      I have discussed campus carry with people from my area. More than one have opposed because “there would probably be accidental shootings by drunk people at college parties.” They conveniently forget about the rapes and murders that actually occur on the University campus, student housing, and nearby apartments. They believe that the hypothetical safety of drunken frat boys is more important than the constitutional rights of rape victims. Of course, there are probably already illegally concealed guns at the colleges parties they are talking about. So, there’s that, too.

  9. avatar Sam Spade says:

    I wonder how she’d feel if those were the arms that were strangling her with her own panty-hose?

  10. avatar BDub says:

    That’s a really cute meme – it so eloquently manages to be sexist, while ironically ignoring YET highlighting the strength differential between men and women – the very differential that a firearm eliminates from the equation of rape, for so many women. Brava!

    1. avatar Nine says:

      You could say those guns, backfired.

      – bada tsss-

      1. avatar Pulatso says:

        I hope you put on a pair of sunglasses while you said that.

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:


    2. avatar disthunder says:

      She probably won’t be as fond of those guns either when the asshole that’s attached to them uses them to pin her down….

    3. avatar TX Gal says:

      I don’t have “guns” like those, which is why I do have .357, 38 special, .22lr and 9mm guns

      1. avatar 'Liljoe says:

        No 45. For shame!

      2. avatar Todd S says:

        (/hyperventilating) I hope you don’t have one of those scary ones with the shoulder thing that goes up! (/pees a little down his leg)

  11. avatar James R says:

    Isn’t it enough that the constitution supports this bill?

    1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      You are talking about a group of people who don’t believe in the constitution so it is kind of a moot point to them. Its like trying to talk about god to an atheist(not making religious commentary its just an example).

  12. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

    Lol her response to TTAG on twitter: Go away.

    Real intellectual heavyweight, that one.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      She’s in training. That’s why she’s going to school.

      1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

        No, she’s fully trained. BSU last year, according to the article.

        1. avatar Gene says:

          That was an education joke. kind of… But you’re right that i didn’t bother to rtfa.

    2. avatar MOguns says:

      It took about four hours but I managed to have a simple back and forth with her on twitter. Only about three messages each but they were fairly telling about her. Try reading them, hers is @walton_emily mine is @twiddrlessjared

      1. avatar Chris (not one of the other 2 chris's) says:

        What else do these people do with their time? Ignore their kids?

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Oh, I doubt this chick will ever be doing that. Abusing other people’s kids? Yea, she has a college degree for that.

  13. Just watch out for the guns. They’ll get you.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Ah, another college graduate that doesn’t quite grasp critical thinking. Here is my shocked face.

    She should realize that at any time, in any class, someone could be carrying a gun because they have decided carrying to protect themselves and other is more important than a stupid rule. Plus, gun free zone rules have utterly failed to stop any mass shooters from shooting up a campus.

    So, Ms. Walton, how will restricting good people from carrying make you safer? Additionally, how will people carrying concealed raise tension? Do you feel more tension off campus because people might be carrying concealed? Probably not. It will be no different on campus.

    1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      A lot of them think that somehow they will know which people are carrying concealed. Like you have to wear a sign. Probably why they think everyone supports this. “I don’t see big signs, therefore nobody carries, therefore nobody wants this.”

  15. avatar disthunder says:

    I would like to create a coalition of my own.In this coalition, we would work to educate young women on the value of self defense. Statistically, the good news is, you’re much likely to be merely raped than killed in a shooting. That’s great, right? So of that’s an acceptable loss for you, than go ahead and keep on pushing this line. What’s that? You don’t want to be raped? Well, that’s a tough one. Pepper spray and whistles aren’t likely to deter a tough guy with a raging hard on. I’d recommend some serious self defense courses, you know, for those assailants who can’t just overpower you on sheer size and strength.
    I’ve been told pissing and puking on yourself might help. Otherwise, if it happens to you, I suppose you should just roll with it, and try to remember any useful details of this emotionally scarring experience to report to campus pd while you’re recovering in hospital.
    Or, you join our side, where we can teach you to arm and effectively move the odds much further in your favor. There’s no absolutes, but if it were me, I would take any clear advantage I can get, as opposed to stay away from the best tool for the job because its scary.
    All it takes is some training, a purchase and a change of mindset, as opposed to a decade of therapy. Coalition, away!

  16. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Comment moderated. No ad hominem attacks please,

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Well I’m not spending a nanosecond of my time to conjure up some rehashed nonsensical self endorsed clever babble just so I don’t appear to be launching an ad hominem attack. So you guys can just skip along happily on this one. I stand by my comments.

  17. avatar Jacquejet says:

    All those people she named who are against the bill is reason enough to be for it.

  18. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    So, what does this chick carry? You can bet your a$$ SHE ain’t walking around unarmed.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      And if she’s “carrying” – that is, walking around everywhere with the guy attached to the muscles in the poster, aren’t they both going to be shocked and surprised when a whack job with a .38 snubbie gets what he wants from her anyway?

      Does she really think her jock boyfriend’s big biceps are going to protect her from a criminal with a gun?

      Oh, and by the way, she graduated. It’s not HER campus any more.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    This is a classic exhibition of female solipsism. There is only one point of view, one reality — and it’s hers.

    Comment moderated

    1. avatar Maineuh says:

      Heh! Great imagery there.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I thought so — and it was clean, too. Alas, the “moderator” disagreed.

    2. avatar Mina says:

      ding ding ding! solipsism.

      I wish I would have seen the rest of the comment. darn.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Well, let’s face it: There are only two things in the Universe – me and not me. Determining which is which is the challenge of the ages.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          However most women are totally unable to tell the difference. It’s always about “me” for them.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Are you sure you don’t mean “my?” 😉

  20. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:

    They should at least allow potato cannons.

    1. avatar Steve Skillern says:

      Ms. Emily Walton, will you personally guarantee the safety of every student in Idaho? Denying everyone the right to self defense insures that no one will be able to defend anyone who can’t defend themselves! (Read defenseless children) How do you think these attacks happen now? No one is armed on the campus and you think that will help? I guess that logic is not taught at Boise State.

  21. avatar AaronW says:

    I read of a student a while back who had a t-shirt like this with the same declaration of biceps being the only “guns” they needed…
    Zero tolerance kicked in, and they were suspended for the firearm reference…

    1. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:


    2. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

      Blue on Blue! Blue on Blue!


    3. avatar bob says:

      charged by the thought police?

  22. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    On “your” campus emily? Before Gov Walker we had “doyle the magnificent” who said the people of Wi didn’t want CC, this after twice passing it only to have him veto. Better cherish your gun free zones now emily, they are going to be as popular as piers at a Texas gun rights barbecue.

  23. avatar vactor says:

    i hope she also means that the campus police not have firearms and that local and other law enforcement officers coming to campus leave their guns at the gates as well.

  24. avatar Jeff says:

    Okay. Good luck finding a husband in Idaho to share your politics and values.

  25. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    What’s an education stakeholder?

    1. avatar Pulatso says:

      Stakeholder is progressive claptrap meant to replace “shareholder” in business lingo, so as to include those who have not put up their own money, yet feel they should have a say in the comings and goings of a corporation. Employeess, patrons, and people living or working near a business are considered stakeholders, because let’s all hold hands and sing Kum By Ya before the board meeting, then ask the guy selling hotdogs across the street what he thinks about the proposed merger.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        So, it’s a made up word to justify someone telling you what to do, even if they hold no weight on the matter or authority…

        Got it!

  26. avatar ChuckN says:

    1. Isn’t it that enough that the Presidents of each and every
    one of Idaho’s Colleges and Universities oppose this bill?


    2. Isn’t it enough that several faculty senates from Idaho
    Colleges and Universities have gone on the record opposing
    this bill?

    ~No. In addition, academics that pander to a cause
    without using logic and giving supporting evidence should
    not only be ashamed of themselves; but frankly should be
    removed from the education profession.

    3. Isn’t it enough that the Idaho State Board of Education
    opposes this bill?

    ~No. Especially considering that most BoEs are run by
    political appointees and managed by career entrenched

    4. Isn’t it enough that the Idaho Chiefs of Police and other law
    enforcement oppose this bill?

    ~No. And honestly their opposition flies in the face of many
    other LEOs testimonies and experiences, even no doubt within
    their own departments.

    5. Isn’t it enough that student representatives from student
    associations – (who are elected from the student body to
    represent students) oppose this bill?

    Sadly. Ms. Walton, if you actually believe that Universities
    allow for a fair and free elections to student governments
    and that many student organizations are even allowed
    existence shows your incredible naivete in the world around

  27. avatar bbguns says:

    The problem is that these anti-Freedom people think that the Constitution is a ‘living, breathing document’ that can be applied as needed to life in the US. Even if you could prove that the majority oppose something, it simply doesn’t matter if what they oppose is an inalienable right PROTECTED, not granted, by the Constitution. When it comes to natural rights, the majority does NOT rule…

  28. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    I don’t get it. If no students, no professors, no college/university presidents, indeed, no “education stakeholders” at all want it, then what’s the big deal with passing it? According to her, the self-appointed spokeswoman, nobody would utilize it. So what’s the big deal? Wouldn’t it be like testifying against a bill that would allow people to eat sewer rat pie on campus?

    Really, if opposition is unanimous and nobody would ever do it, then why fight against the prospect? We all know why. Her vehemence against RKBA belies the strength of support for it among young, freedom-minded education stakeholders. That’s why. Yet another little Stalinist wannabe who wants to dictate to others when and where they may exercise their God-given rights. These thugs in pumps are no better than their jackbooted counterparts.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Because if only one person decides not to conform to utopia it is destroyed.

  29. avatar Mediocrates says:

    If genetically inferior humans wish to pre – victimize themselves, I’m all for it.

  30. avatar Merits says:

    No it’s not enough, and the assertion that no university presidents want guns on campus is only useful to demonstrate the sorry (leftist) state higher education is in. Even in Idaho.

  31. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Suppose Ms. Emily Walton and company oppose chastity and her argument is thus,
    “I don’t think that guns chastity belongs on a school campus, concealed or un-concealed. … It would add more tension to our campus. I think it would alter the atmosphere and I don’t want that. Students are not asking for this to happen. …. Honestly, we think it’s crazy.”

    So is that sufficient to ban chastity on school campus?

    We have to start telling civilian disarmament proponents that they are promoting tyranny, plain and simple. And I think we have to substitute “chastity” for the word “gun” in their tirades to illustrate the point. Then and only then do they have a chance of understanding what they are doing.

    So put it on the table. Tell them in no uncertain terms. No matter how many people in a mob want to force a person to have sex (because the mob opposes chastity in my example above) — even if a huge majority of the mob is on board — it is still rape. Therefore, no matter how many members of the campus mob want to forcibly disarm someone, it is still wrong. It denies the dignity of that person who wishes to be armed.

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    You did not “make a meme” emily. You photoshopped an image, probable lifted from somewhere without permission, and plastered it somewhere. That does not a meme make. Milhouse is a meme.

  33. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    A quick read of her bio told me everything about her.
    She is destined for a life of left wing, progressive politics.
    She is just another person who will spend her life trying to impose her ideals on everyone else.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      And one of the ironic things about Freedom is that even sickies like her are still allowed to build little “gun-free” enclaves, as long as they pay their own bills and don’t send men with guns to rob us or to force everybody else to follow their own personal evolutionary dead end.

    2. avatar Mina says:

      it’s worse than that: she’s a FEMINIST. they suck.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Somehow, I can’t see people who believe in women’s empowerment being against women’s right to self-defense.

        Assuming I even know what “feminist” means.

        In any case, this bimbo isn’t a feminist, she’s a professional victim.

    3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      She will never have a job, never do anything productive or useful. She WILL spend her life sucking up welfare benies, screeching endlessly about being a victim of ______ and never, not ever, take responsibility for any of her actions. Oh, and don’t forget the tax payer funded abortions. She is THE poster child for leftist, anti-American ideology.

      And no, this is not an ad hom attack, it is the pattern these “people” always follow.

  34. avatar Sam Spade says:

    From the watermark on the image, Ms. Emily got her “Man Flexing Arm Muscle” here:

    I’ve look and I can’t see any “gun” in her image. Does she ever explain where this “gun” she wants on campus is?

    1. avatar Sam Spade says:

      Maybe there are other memes to find.

  35. avatar Jack in MT says:

    Isn’t it enough to wish and hope that I’ll never witness violence?

    Isn’t it enough to rely on the government to save me from harm?

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      With the countless aspiring spree killers turning away defeated from the “Gun-Free Zone” signs our wise and benevolent leaders display on campus grounds, I’d say hoping is more than adequate. Now if only we could only join hands in brotherhood we could wish away all that pesky violence and crime altogether.

      Man, this stupidly naïve denying of reality is making me right peckish; I’d better just sit here and wish really hard for a burrito.

  36. avatar Tarrou says:

    Goes back to a post I made about guns and self defense a year or two back. What this woman is saying is that she wants to be at a permanent disadvantage and at the mercy of any man who overcomes society’s strictures. The gun is the equalizer. It means any 85 yo pensioner is the (rough) equal of a muscular young man. If I were a misogynist, I’d be all for gun control, it makes it certain I could physically intimidate or overcome 99.99% of all women. But crucially, I neither want nor need to intimidate them, and I care about those physically weaker than me, so I want them to have the means to defend themselves.

    This meme demonstrates perfectly the secret masochistic submissive nature of the antis. They long to be at the mercy of those stronger than they.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      The term you are looking for is self-destructive masochism.

  37. avatar John L. says:

    I found that poster offensive. We don’t – and can’t – all have physiques like a bodybuilder.

    How would she had reacted to a poster of a naked pair of breasts suitable for an anime character with the same caption? I can hear the righteous indignation now.

  38. avatar alveo says:

    Thank you, I have recently been searching for info about this topic for a long time and yours
    is the greatest I’ve discovered so far. However, what in regards
    to the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to
    the source?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email