Second time I've submitted a letter. First time they printed one.

We've had a bunch of sexual assaults here, and naturally they've been blaming President Spanier (who had the GALL to send out a letter telling women not to walk alone at night or in dark places. How DARE he!), men in general, and the cops.

A guy named Mr. Grove (as I insisted on calling him. I hate when newspapers just use a last name.) had the balls to send in a letter basically saying to use some damn common sense, get a gun, and the police don't have to protect you. The paper then printed about four letters attacking Mr. Grove, two calling him an idiot. Our paper typically has a liberal bent.

So I wrote it. I actually quoted two court cases, but the paper cut one for reasons unknown to me. They also cut out my use of "Mr.", which annoys me greatly. I guess I have to send in another letter.

In some of the responses to Daniel Grove's letter ("Readers respond to column on assault," Nov. 13) there have been questions about whether the police are responsible for protecting people, to the point of some folks accusing Grove of idiocy. Well, Grove is actually right. Perhaps those accusing him of idiocy should read such cases as Bowers v. DeVito, where the 7th Circuit Court stated, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution." Of course, there are other cases. The police are not required to come rushing to your aid in a dark alley, although I'm sure they would. Fact is, you are basically responsible for your own safety. It would be nice to be able to depend on the responses and actions of others, but that's a fine way to end up a corpse. And to answer Leslie Ross' question ("Readers debate appropriate response to sexual assaults," Nov. 14) about defending oneself against multiple large attackers, I know of many women that can, and have. They just, oddly enough, all happen to have concealed carry permits.

www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/11/11-17-03tdc/11-17-03dops-letter-04.asp

See that? Calling people by just their last names! I'd only do that to a close friend, not some guy I don't know even if I agree with him.

Good on you, sir.

The Daily Collegian is totally anti-gun. They habitually have "editorial opinions" against assualt rifles, guns and self defense.

I remember when I used to go to College there, we all carried guns at night. We used to wait tables at Cafe 210 and carried home hundreds of dollars in change...thus we carried guns. Never had a problem.

You forget that a lot of Big-City Liberals go to school there. I remember once going out to the range. My buddies and me had Galils, AR15 and a couple of FALs with us. All carried over our shoulders and heading to our cars. We saw this one older female student drop her groceries when she saw us....I still get a kick out of that.

Well done.

Great job. Sometimes the soft sell gets through. I'm sure if you would have ranted and raved in your correspondence, it would have gotten pitched in the trash. I like the way you provided the actual court case to prove to all the sheeple that the police are really not required to protect the masses.

Bravo, sir. Good on you.

Good letter... Colleges are very liberal in general...

If you're 20 and you're not a liberal you don't have a heart.

If you're 40 and you're not a conservative, you don't have a brain.

Shawn

good for you!