Fundamental Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives:

Liberals want to force everyone to do things their way. Conservatives live by the principle of free agency, allowing people to act for themselves, and learn from it- as long it does not infringe on the personal free agency of others.

2010... the Year the Ideals of the Founding Fathers Were Thrown out the window

So I thought I would take a few minutes and sum up all the major decisions, controversies, legislation by President Obama, Congress, and and a few federal judges. Also worth mention will be the elections.

• THe Cleanup of Haiti mostly dominated the news in early January. It was good to see the world unite to help these people out.

• In mid-February, President Obama unveiled his revamped healthcare bill... 1000 more pages added on to it, with legislation written in that has nothing to do with healthcare, including new regulation of all new student loans being processed through the Fed. It passed within a month, on March 21. It was the largest reform to pass through congress since FDR's New Deal... and it was done against the will of the people.

• Immigration reform once again resurfaced. Blah. Gratefully, the Senate killed the DREAM act, which would have caused even more federal spending.

• One of my favorite events from this past year was Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally. It was good to see that so many people are looking for morality in America, and trust in our politicians and other leaders.

• The Elections showed that there is still hope for America, where the super-majority of Democrats in both houses were diminished.

While they kept a majority in the Senate, and Harry Reid kept his seat at majority leader, the Democrats took quite the beating in the house, ending the ever-polarizing Nancy Pelosi's day of power, an event celebrated by conservatives and moderates all over America.

Enter at Stage Right-wing: John Boehner. I think he'll do a marvelous job. See ya, Nancy.

• Resurfacing also this year was the Prop 8 debate in California, where said proposition passed in 2008, banning homosexual "marriages". It was brought to court in 2010, and was ruled "unconstitutional" . . . by a homosexual judge. I personally see this as non-sequitur, and an appellate court sees this false reasoning as something worth hearing. Undoubtedly, this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. My opinion: the people spoke, Judge Walker. You were wrong.

• WikiLeaks became headline news in late November. It is defined by Wikipedia (not affiliated) as "an international non-profit organization that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks." This is something I have honestly been expecting to happen, as much as I hate it. I do hope we can try these guys, because they are undoubtedly responsible for deaths of soldiers, federal agents, and journalists as we continue to fight the war in Afghanistan. I hope Julian Assange is tried and hanged.

• President Obama actually did something good in December, and extended Bush-era tax cuts to all Americans, not just the poor. I applaud this decision, and hope he makes more along these lines.

• Federal Spending continued to increase, however, bringing the national debt to almost $14 Trillion, with a massive deficit of well over $1 Trillion . . . and federal spending continued to climb. If anything destroys our country, it will be this, because those in power subscribe to Keynesian economics, and believe that spending creates money.

from the hand of Glenn Beck...

"As the Romans found out the hard way,

just because it looks like Freedom,

doesn't mean it is."

Hillary Clinton

I've really never been a big Hillary fan. She's too liberal for my taste, particularly regarding gun control. However, I do think she is doing a good work, striving for peace and alliance in the middle east.

But i have a conspiracy theory to share with you. I know President Obama and her do not get along regarding how things should be done. I wonder if he has her over there so often to keep her from interfering in domestic affairs and damaging his political image...

image found here

Hope

I got this in an email :)

You can't see the rest, but Uncle Sam has a thought bubble that says, "It's fading."

No kidding.

Agreement and Progressivism

"Even on things we usually agree, they say no. They just think it's better to score political points before an election than to solve problems."

The President said this today in a speech, where he told us that he is going to raise taxes on oil, spend another $50 Billion to "stimulate" the economy and create jobs "immediately." The republicans have perhaps been working with him on past initiatives that were similar, but we can hope that maybe the Republicans in the legislative branch are seeing that this progressive, "moving forward" and "creating a better tomorrow" business is really a load of crap to socialize America, and that socialism doesn't work as well as it's proponents claim.

We can only hope.

The republicans need all the political points they can get. I hope they keep up this strategy of disagreeing with the progressives.And they need to steer this country back toward the free market, back to deregulation, back to letting us keep the money we earn, and thereby create more jobs, because we'll have the money to pay more workers, which will produce more product and services, have more money for research, marketing, and advertising, and create a higher demand. More demand, more money, more sales, more jobs, more income for the Fed.

Wow. What a concept.

From the President's tone today, I can see that the he's in a panic. He is angry that we want to take things back to how they used to be, the way that worked, the way that created the roaring 90s: Reganomics.

Read the full article here on FoxNews. You can see how worked up he really is, that he's losing political capital.

Don't like Fox News? Check out CNN's version.

False Reasoning

Thinking that we can solve the problem of growing government by growing the government, as well as more spending to stimulate a debt-ridden economy, is circle reasoning, bordering on being non-sequitur. I'm just saying.

Quote of the Week

"Sometimes I can't remember really important things.... yet, somehow, I can remember all the times I've gone pee in the past six months."

-my 18-year-old brother

So I read today on CNN and FoxNews that the Iraq War has cost the United States less, in its 7 or 8 years, than the recent stimulus bill that was passed. The Iraq war has show results. The government has kept us safe through fighting it, which, last I checked, is its job.

The stimulus bill has done nothing of the sort, save raise taxes and drive us further into debt. Sounds productive, huh? A strong federal government was not what the founding fathers had in mind, and said bill has certainly not been in line with their way of thinking. We've seen a 25%increase of government with this and other recently-passed bills.

And it's all done against the voice of the majority of the people. A democrat/progressive/liberal I engaged in a debate (if you can call it that; he just attacked people the whole time) put their view rather succinctly:

"D*** the Republicans! Full Speed ahead!"

I figured that's how it was...now my worst fears have been confirmed.

Quote of the Week

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine but demonic."

-Pope Benedict

sources: picture- http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3424

quote: Glenn Beck, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600150,00.html

Opinions

I have been relatively quiet about the mosque at Ground Zero. I will continue to remain that way, after I state my opinion here. I think that it's well within the rights of the Muslim people to build it wherever they want. This is, after all, America, and all who are citizens and corporations established in this country have the right to life, liberty, and property. However, I do not think it is wise, given the sensitive feelings of the people who lost loved ones there. I could go on for a while about this, but that's not the intent of this blog.

A close friend of mine was talking to some people who's opinion differed from hers, on this very subject. She agrees with me, and when she put her views forward, she was immediately called a bigot, a racist, etc. She was accosted; she was upset.

I have found this to be a pervading attitude amongst liberals, that if you don't agree with them, then you are a bigot, a hater, you are close-minded, etc. Well- perhaps they are right, when it comes to being close-minded. Morality has become a relative term, but those of us who choose true conservatism believe that you don't back down on your morals. If someone believes in their being a pacifist, great, you can. If someone belives abortion is wrong, fantastic. If someone doesn't like guns, then don't buy any.

What we don't like is when your views are forced down our throats, and we are forced to either pay into it even if we don't participate, when you advocate our property and/or rights being taken away, or when you tell us to "come together" on an issue that we believe to be morally wrong or economically unwise, or when we are forced to live around something that we feel is morally degrading, wrong, or simply uncomfortable.

I feel that the Muslim mosque is uncomfortable for many, because many of our people were killed under the false pretenses of that religion. So it is thus unwise to upset so many Americans who feel so strongly about it. I'm just saying.

PS- I don't want to be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

Quote of the Week

"Right now... [Glenn Beck is] a ticking time bomb for the progressive movement in this country."

-Robert Ringer, "Glenn Beck's Departure from Fox News, Part 2"

Today's Educational System

I work as a tutor at the LDS Business College during the school year, where I am currently studying business management. I chose to attend said school because I heard that it was excellent school. When I got there, and began tutoring my second semester, I was blown away by the great abundance miseducation that is beginning to plague our society.

Something I have observed is that people are becoming more and more concerned with doing only the bare minimum, and "passing that test", rather than becoming truly educated. So as we move through the next couple of paragraphs, please take note of each experience and the trouble that our society is headed for if this pattern continues.

• I tutor english. I have usually 4 to 6 appointments any given day. Foreign students aside, most of these individuals don't know how to write. I don't blame them- they want to do their best, or they wouldn't be coming to me for help. I blame it on the teachers, who don't take time to teach the kids in middle and high school great literature. I blame it on focusing on pushing an agenda, rather than teaching what a great paper is composed of. When these kids come to college, and all of the sudden they're expected be able to argue, to theorize and speculate, and to show patterns, they can't. Many can't even define what a paragraph is, let alone keep the basic grammatical structure taught to me in grade school.

• I also tutor Information Technology 102, which is a basic introductory course. This course is a prime example of teaching to the test. Most of these kids' lives, they're taught to conform to the basics. In all other aspects of college education, they're taught to learn, and to grow, and expand knowledge in their own areas of preference. In this course, they're taught to all conform, and basically bow to the mighty test, not to learn computer skills.

It's really annoying. I just wish there was something I could do about it.

Silencers

So I was reading today about silencers for guns and the cases for and against them. I haven't really formulated an opinion yet, but I at least found a rather hilarious quote on a blog:

"You can’t fix stupid, and you can’t legislate away its ill effects."

Summer Sales

I am a man of strong, biased opinions. That much should be clear from my past posts. Now- I am going to say some offensive things in this post. Get ready to have your eyebrows raised, or stop reading right now. The choice is yours.

Summer sales is a scam.

Yes, I said it, loud and clear. Why? Because it's not fair to any one who partakes in it on an ordinary level, especially honest people. I have had a large number of friends do it. Those who were honest, and I mean completely and totally honest, make almost no money. Customers are fooled into believing that the salesman isn't really a sales man. The companies lies to their employees telling them they can make 20k in a summer. I had a friend who went out for a month. He was honest. He made about $2000 (maybe less).

I have had my experiences, with these companies. I would say that the worst is probably APX. I almost got talked into working for them this past summer. I worked a couple of pre-season sales with my manager and his assistant. I watched them and had them attempt to teach me deceitful practices that made me uncomfortable, and I knew that if I gave into presenting myself in such a manner, I would not be qualified to hold a temple recommend for temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They would justify it and call it "good business." I can hardly agree, since several states, including New York, Minnesota, and others have banned these companies from going door-to-door to sell their products.

I have had several close friends tell me that their companies, Pinnacle, Terminix, Orkin, etc. have encouraged similar practices. I would encourage anyone who is with these companies to take a good look at them. If you feel like you can work for them honestly, and make a lot of money, then go for it. But I know it would not have been wise for me.

Quote of the Week

“If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid.

That’s ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the h*** do I have to be paranoid about?”

-Clint Smith

Quote of the Week

"The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The "progressives" want

to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We're not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed."

-Fouad Ajami,

Opinion writer for the Wall Street Journal, "The Obsolescence of Barack Obama"

August 11, 2010. Read the full article here.

Spending and Taxing

This morning, my dad and I were listening to Glenn Beck together on the way to a doctor's appointment. This is a regular occurrence, and the conversation turned from current events, to the root thereof: the liberal agenda of heavy taxation of all people, not just the rich, as they would have you believe. It reminded me of the old addage, that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

I then observed to my dad that we are, quite literally, taxed about 50% of all our earnings. When I worked for Publix Supermarkets, a for-profit corporation, social security, federal income taxes, and such, took $5000 of my $10,000 income. I would get approximately $600 back from my tax return.

I work for a non-profit school right now, so I don't have to deal with that because my income is below the taxable bracket. But I have become more and more sour about this as time has progressed. The Book of Mormon talks about a people who had the same problem, as their own government taxed them one fifth of all they owned, and the difficulty that this caused. At the same point in time, there was another people who, through their wickedness, had come to be in bondage to their enemies, who taxed them one half of all their labors and possessions. It makes it very clear that this is not okay in the eyes of the Lord, but that through obedience to His laws, and much prayer and supplication to Him, we can get through this, as we make the effort to overcome and work our way out of such dire circumstances.

The TEA Party has caught my attention. In case you didn't know, the name is an acronym that stands for "Taxed Enough Already".

88 Days

"We have 88 days. In less than two years, we have gone from a demoralized super-minority party to a legion of effective shock troops who are on the offense and making Democrats sweat.”

–Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele today at a RNC meeting in Kansas City, Mo.

nut jobs

"I'd rather be a Right-winged nut job than a no-nuts, no-job liberal."

-Random offensive right-winged t-shirt website

How We Think

SO ... I was flipping through the channels this evening with my dad, and we came to the O'Riley Factor on FoxNews (it's no secret I love that channel). It was right at the end of the show, where Bill was showing some clips from other shows, and he showed a clip from Dave Letterman's Late Show (and this is where it gets interesting).

Dave said, in regards to O'Riley "...i think he knows what he's doing... he's found a place to make a living. He's be a weatherman if the money was right, or maybe do sports if the money was right. He's just doing this 'cuz that's where the money is. I don't think you can be as smart as he is and actually believe what he believes."

This seems to be the pervading liberal media attitude. Through conversations I've recently had with liberal friends of mine, and observing comments like this, I think that liberals don't really understand what exactly it means to be conservative.

Would you like to know? Send me a message; I'll be happy to explain it.

Newt Says it Right

Newt Gingirich is fairly moderate, and I disagree with him a lot of the time, but he really hits it spot-on, here. This is about 10 minutes long, but I really recommend.

They're going about it the wrong way

You know, I haven't ever really said much about immigration up until now. But I feel like there are a couple of points that need to be made.

• Immigration should be done the legal way. If you break that law, you should be deported. I'm not thinking we have to bar these people from ever coming here again, but only legally. Border patrol should be stepped up. We should be less tolerant of those who violate our sovereignty. But we should continue to welcome those who want to come here legally and live the American Dream.

• Arizona has the right idea. They are simply doing the job that the Federal government should be doing, but refuses to do because of the politically incorrect nature of it. They have the right to check to see if someone should be in their state legally. There is nothing in the United States Constitution against it. Meantime, Mexico is getting a little worked up, to say the least...

The Democrats (and any incumbent really) really have to play their cards right this coming election of they want to stay in office. I would personally like to see them hang themselves, along with their socialist/environmentalist/politically correct agenda, and get a conservative majority back in there. But, if they want to stay there, they're not doing it well. Any smart politician knows you have to move to the center in both word and action if you want to stay in action. The Democrats are continually moving full speed ahead directly to the left, particularly on this issue of immigration reform. Taking the State of Arizona to court over this issue is political suicide, and will only make the people angrier than they already are.

Summary: The Dems are screwing up, big time. I'm not stopping them, though. Go for it, Mr. President. And hopefully we'll be calling your friends Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid by their new title, Minority Leader if they're able to maintain their congressional offices at all.

Obama Blunders: they never stop.

So i read on Fox News this afternoon that President Barak Obama will not be attending the National Jamboree for the Boy Scouts of America. Up to this point, President Obama has done things that have not been politically wise, to say the least, if he wants to win conservatives over to his side. However, this latest move of his of staying away from the Boy Scouts has indeed solidified, in my mind, with this very direct and bold silent statement that he wants to depart from traditional American values and our way of living.

Indeed, he has made a point of trying to move our country toward mainstream Hollywood values. Perhaps I wouldn't be as offended if this was just a normal Jamboree, but indeed, it's the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts. Whether he likes the organization or not, it's one of the few left that saves boys from the deceptions of the world.

And to add insult to injury, he's not going to a big convention, a United Nations meeting, or something super-important. He's going to simply be taping with the ladies from The View.

Really, Mr. President?

...I swear, it's almost like he's more worried about being famous than he is about running this country effectively...

EFY

So it's been four years since I have been able to attend the Especially for Youth (EFY) program, which is run by BYU and the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a participant in the program. (In those four years, I spent two of them serving a mission for said Church, a year working, and this past year in school, studying business.)

When I was offered the opportunity to be involved with EFY as a counselor, I jumped on it, because I saw the benefits it gave me as I participated, and I felt like I owed a debt to the Lord and to the program. It was a nice break and a bit of a relief to get out of the norm and serve the youth (teenagers 14-18) of the Church and help them along in the quest to find themselves and their faith. It really caused me to reflect on the things I believe and why I believe them.

I feel like sometimes, we just skate along and feel like we're doing alright. But this past month or so while I was away, being so closely involved with these kids who really wanted to know if all this is true, I made a point of doing exactly what they were doing: focusing on the basics. And you know what? My testimony grew a little stronger.

The theme this year was "Courage to Stand Strong." My personal resolve is to now make a stronger effort to stand for the things I know to be correct in action- even if that means standing up to members of my own faith, as we were counseled by the living prophet, Thomas S. Monson.

I have a feeling this won't be the easiest thing, but I promised those kids I would take home with me what I learned...

What is Friendship?

credit
Normally, I am quite political on this blog. I see it as an opportunity to express myself behind a certain curtain of anonymity and make it clear for my views to be heard throughout the world.
I'm going to depart from that for this post. I want to share with you what friends mean to me. I'm going to ask a few basic questions that I always ask when I argue a point, present some other views on this second-most basic unit of society (as well as the first, the family). These questions are, "Who are our friends, what do they do, why and how do they do it, and where are our friends located? What role do they play in our lives?
"What has been the media's role in teaching us what friendship is? Is there such a thing as fake, or delusional friendship? What about internet friends? How do they effect our lives? Is that effect good or bad?"




Let me begin by telling a story. Last evening, I was exchanged some heated words with a friend, who I thought I had grown close to over the past year. This individual has shown tendencies to drive people off, but I made a choice to stay close to them. I would defend them behind their back. Yet, through someone he has met in person fewer times than I can count on two hands, he decided last night that I "wasn't a good friend", and took it as on opportunity to attack my character, my actions, and even dragged my lovely girlfriend into the middle of it.
Repeatedly in the past he has needled me. He showed an ability to ruin any good conversation. Yet, because of his ability to give, I knew he couldn't be all bad. So I made the effort to help him sort his thoughts and intentions out. I remained patient with him and his actions. Not going into detail here, I will simply say that my kindness was tried, but I continued to look for good.
You might be asking why he would throw this out the window. I'm still trying to figure that out. But I can say that I am positive that his perception of friendship is warped. More to come.

Religion vs. Science

Let me begin by telling you that I am not a scientist. I certainly don't know everything about it, but I do know its basic rules, that the most basic process of the scientific method is hypothesis, then theory after observation, then law after that theory has been repeatedly proven.

Recently, I have been involved in a rather passionate debate with a friend regarding global warming. He is a geology major. I do not claim to know more than him. However, his point of view is rather disturbing. Most recently, he has told me that "religion and science to not belong in the same conversation." He has chosen to attend a state university, which is his choice. That's just fine. However, it is through this fashion that people are deceived by the left-wing agenda, that religion does not belong in our everyday lives.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that our religion should dictate all of our actions, including that of our education and profession. If a scientific theory does not line up with our religion, such as that of evolution, we are encouraged to study why. We are encouraged, even commanded by the Lord, to gain our own testimony of this.

I would contend that science and religion do, in fact, coincide and even compliment each other.
Daniel J. Fairbanks, a BYU professor of botany, gave a speech in 2000 called The Arts, the Sciences, and the Light of the Gospel. In it, he makes some rather compelling statements that argue my point quite well.

I quote part of it, but I certainly encourage my readers to look at the whole text. It's quite enlightening.

For example, Francis Collins, who is the director of the human genome project, one of the greatest scientific undertakings in history, said:

"When something new is revealed about the human genome, I experience a feeling of awe at the realization that humanity now knows something only God knew before. It is a deeply moving sensation that helps me appreciate the spiritual side of life, and also makes the practice of science more rewarding. A lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings." [Quoted by Gregg Easterbrook, "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Science 277, no. 5328 (15 August 1997): 892]

A remarkable number of prominent scientists, both past and present, have expressed their own religious feelings, and I think it is appropriate at this university to share some of their writings. As a geneticist, I like to use Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics who was also an Augustinian monk, as an example of an objective scientist who was fully committed to his faith. I have my students read Mendel's classic work because it is such a superb example of scientific experimentation and objectivity. However, Mendel also left us some powerful religious writings. The following is an excerpt from an English translation of a poem he wrote:

Wherefore was man created?

Wherefore did, into a pinch of dust,

An unfathomably exalted Being

Breathe the breath of life? Assuredly

The Most High, who so wisely

Shaped the round world, and who

For his own sage purpose fashioned the worm out of dust

Created man also

For some definite reason. Assuredly

The capacities of the mind

Prove that for it a lofty aim

Is reserved. . . .

But unfading are the laurels of him

Who earnestly and zealously strives

To cultivate his mind,

Who with the full light of his understanding

Seeks and finds the mysterious depths of knowledge,

Of him in whose development the germ

Of glorious discovery implants itself.

[In Hugo Iltis, Life of Mendel, trans. Eden Paul and Cedar Paul (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1966), 36–37]

As we study the sciences, we are studying the details of creation. The words of Fyodor Dostoevsky from his classic work of literature The Brothers Karamazov summarize well the message of my devotional:

"Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." [Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, in Mortimer J. Adler, ed., Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1990), 52:175]

IF God created the earth, and IF He is who He says He is, and He truly knows all things, then certainly, by observing the words of His prophets we can find the truth. Not through science alone, but through living oracles called prophets, and through the Holy Ghost giving is personal revelation.

Don Lind sums it up quite well in his 1986 New Era article, "Things Not Seen" :

Some people have suggested that science and religion are basically different, that they involve themselves in different questions (which is probably true), and that they are incompatible intellectually. I challenge the incompatibility part of that statement. Science and religion use different kinds of tools, but I think they are intellectually compatible, since a person who is well educated can also have a testimony. He need not be ashamed of his testimony, and he need not compromise his intellectual standards when he considers the gospel. As a youth striving to get my own testimony and also as an aspiring scientist, I was overjoyed to find how comfortably they fit together.

I rest my case.

Signs Don't Stop Criminals

The more I have studied the subject of gun violence on college campuses, the more apparent it has become that it cannot be prevented simple by telling armed criminals to stay out. They have never listened to these laws. In the 1800’s, and even into the early part of the twentieth century, people carried guns openly. The media would have us believe that this resulted in the Wild West and countless gunfights. The reality is that people were less likely to pull a gun and commit a crime with it.

While I am a little leery regarding the subject of open carry of weapons today, I believe that restricting weapons completely in an area is unwise and self-defeating, because criminals who have the intent to kill obviously have little regard for the law that forbids us to murder, so why would they listen to a sign or a statute, which would make it a lesser crime, telling them to keep their gun out of a certain area?

Anti-gun lobbyists in the Association for Student Conduct Adminstration, The Associaion of College and University Housing officers- International, and the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, issued a statement as to why they believe that students should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, including accidental discharge of the weapon, risk of thievery, risk of suicide, and the fact that some students don’t want to be around guns or someone who carries a weapon. This statement also claims that security measures have been taken to protect students, who, they claim, are less likely to become victims of violent crimes. They also worry about the school’s liability if the student were to lawfully possess and carry a gun. (1)

I see little to no relevance in each of these claims in comparison the duty that is had in allowing a human the right to protect his or her own life. It is also irrelevant because the United States Constitution specifically states that we have this right to protect ourselves. It is illogical, because there have been few reported incidents of gun thievery on campuses; allowing students to keep guns in dorm rooms has never been experimented with, and I have not been able to find any statistics on this subject. Those who tell us that the guns would be stolen are only theorizing.

Telling us that security measures can help keep us safe is an empty and hollow promise, as we have seen on numerous occasions, the worst being Virginia Tech in 2007, and the students that are members of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus posted this poster and ones of a similar nature all around Winona State University in Minnesota, to prove that point.

Human life is worth being defended. Those who think that a simple sign can accomplish that purpose need to wake up and look at not only what has happened, but how it happened and how it can be avoided or mitigated in the future.

The Debate About Concealed Carry on Campus

Readers, this essay written from what is known as a Rogerian standpoint. The basis of it is trying to find common ground with the opposing party, while at the same time attempting to get my point across with little or no emotional argument. I feel like I have done an effective job at this, but i welcome comments on how this could be improved.

-D.W.

Would students be at a higher risk of their safety on college campuses if they were allowed to carry concealed weapons? Many school administrations seem to think so, given the lethal nature of firearms. They are concerned that students would be given a greater disposition to misuse or become carless in the handling of firearms. They back these claims with emotionally stirring stories, from places like Virginia Tech, where Seung-Hui Cho, an English Major at the university, had legally obtained his weapons, and ruthlessly murdered 32 people, in two separate incidents.

Cho was in complete compliance with all gun-purchase laws within the state of Virginia until the day of the shootings.

One of the victims, Colin Goddard,

who was injured in the shooting, has joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He has made a strong effort in his campaign endorse laws that ensure that there are no guns permitted on college campuses. This campaign has spoken to many bodies of legislation across the country.

Goddard is genuinely concerned with the safety of his fellow student, and being a victim a violent rampage that had one of the most tragic outcomes our country has ever seen, he is viewed by many as the perfect man to be at the front of this fight to keep guns off college campuses. He is quoted in The Dallas Morning News, giving some rather sound logic to his case:

“Three scholars wrote in the Journal of American College Health in 2002: 'college gun owners are more likely than those who do not own guns to engage in activities that put themselves and others at risk.' I experienced that first-hand…

“Remember, my whole class thought it was construction noise. Then I thought the killer was a police officer. I barely had time to make the phone call. Anyone who thinks I could have gotten to a weapon and shot somebody I never fully saw watches too many movies.

Instead of putting more guns in that classroom two years ago, I would work toward removing the two that were there, in the hands of the shooter. Guns on campus were the problem two years ago, not the solution. And we have to solve the problem, not make more of them.” (Goddard, “Guns on Campus”, 2009)

Also with this movement are other groups, including the Association for Student Conduct Administration, the Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, and the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. The Executive Directors of these three organizations have banded together, and issued a statement naming many valid and substantial arguments against not only concealed carry, but possession of weapons in general on any university property. Some of their reasoning includes the higher risk of suicide that weapon possession creates, inability to ensure that students maintain proper permits for and storage of weapons, risk of theft of firearms, accidental discharge, or even misuse of the gun by licensed holders, such as in the case of Virginia Tech’s crazed killer.

They make it very clear that they do not wish to see laws enacted that restrict the right of state-run universities to ban concealed weapons, such as the state of Utah has done. They mention that measures are taken “to ensure the safety of student, such as:

the presence of hall staff, front desk monitors, student background checks, security services, campus safety patrols, locked entry doors, security monitoring devises, etc.” (Potts, Traxler, Blumenthal, “Statement”, 2009).

However, in there is another logical approach that is also genuinely concerned with the safety of students. These individuals and groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), Students for Concealed Carry, and the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, contend that guns have already saved lives at schools where concealed weapons carry is permitted, such as was the case in 2002 when two law students at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia held a gunman at bay, with their own weapons that they legally possessed. (CCRKBA, “…Saved Lives”)

These groups contend that because there have been no school shootings of any kind in the state of Utah, where concealed weapons carry is permitted at all state schools, this would deter criminals in other states, citing statistics that violent crime in states that allow concealed weapons carry is upwards 30% lower than that of states that do not allow concealed carry. (Lott, More Guns, 1998.)They argue that this logic should be applied to college campuses, because college campuses are no different than any other place, such as malls or office buildings, that allow legal concealed weapons carry. (ConcealedCampus.org, “Common Arguments”, argument 4)

While agreeing with the safety concerncs that Goddard, the Brady Campaign,

and others who promote and fight for tighter gun control laws present, I would tend to agree with the second argument, because it seems more factually based, relying more upon logic and facts, rather than emotionally-based speculation, of what “could happen”, such as increases of suicides. I personally find these risks to be negligibly small when held in comparison to benefits of allowing individual students to protect themselves.

Such students who choose to legally carry weapons usually do not live in dorms, as those students would tend to be more of the freshmen, eighteen to nineteen years old, fresh out of high school and still unable to legally carry a concealed weapon. Those whom I have spoken to who wish to carry their weapons normally reside outside of the colleges’ campuses; this is the case at the LDS Business College, for instance, where most of those in the dorms are indeed eighteen or nineteen years of age, with the occasional twenty-something residing there.

True, all are concerned about the safety of students on college campuses. I encourage everyone to take a good look at both sides and make a decision for themselves: should students be guaranteed their constitutional right to carry weapons on campus? As a concealed weapons permit holder, I advocate this right, on the basis that it will keep students safer, because criminals will most certainly think twice before shooting up a place where people could potentially be armed and prepared to defend their lives.

Sources:

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, Concealedcampus.org/ (n.d.), retrieved March 25, 2010

Goddard, C. The Dallas Morning News, “Guns on Campus Are Problem, Not Solution”, (Monday, April 26, 2009), retrieved 13 April 2010 via http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-goddard_28edi.State.Edition1.253393d.html

Lott, J. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (1998), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Potts, B.; Traxler, S.; Blumenthal, K,. Statement against Concealed Weapon Carry in University Residence (2009, June 19), The Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), retrieved 13 April 2010, via http://www.acuho-i.org/portals/0/pdf/concealed_carry_statement_wNIRSA_ASCA.pdf