Arizona is considering a “controversial” bill that would prevent state-run colleges from restricting students’ Second Amendment rights. Only not really. SB1474 will allow in-state campuses to ban guns within buildings—provided the campus has gun lockers and posts signage informing gun owners of the policy. The first thought in my mind: what good is concealed carry if you have to check your gun at the door of every class you attend? I’ve got three words for the bill’s framers: target rich environment. Further, creating a single storage space where a pile of weapons are just a crowbar away strikes me as an exceptionally bad idea. And here’s the big question: how do you get to college without learning about the United States Constitution? How do you get to be a professor–-a law teacher— without understanding its basic tenets? azcentral.com:

Flagstaff Mayor Sara Presler [above], an attorney who has taught at Northern Arizona University, asked legislators to vote down the bill.

She said she supports the Second Amendment, but said college is not the place for weapons.

“It’s (hard) to imagine encouraging a free marketplace of ideas and intellectual growth developed in an environment with a Colt 45 strapped to the hip of a student or professor,” Presler wrote in a letter. “Bring a book to class, not a Colt 45.”

“I support the Second Amendment.” Words. The same (first) words that came out of the mouths of Mayors Menino and Bloomberg during their pro-gun control Superbowl ad (aired in the New England market). Note to gun control advocates: words have meaning. If you think about it . . .

One of my favorite rhetorical tactics when it comes to the Second Amendment: substitute one of the other items in the Bill of Rights for the right to keep and bear arms. It’s why I am no longer a “reasonable restrictions” guy and am now a “the second amendment is my permit” guy.

Imagine if Arizona were considering a bill to restore the right to peaceably assemble on campus. Would student groups form in opposition to the idea (admittedly, such a group would have trouble convincing one another to get together for a protest)?

I’m confident that if a vote were taken on any given college campus to “restore” Second Amendment rights to students while on campus, the vote would fail handily*.  Our education system does a horrible job of teaching civics in anything approaching a historic fashion. There is far more fervent support for a “right” found in the emanations and penumbras of the Fourth Amendment than a clearly articulated right such as the second.

The common view of the Bill of Rights is deeply distorted in society and the academy is a chief culprit. I’ve said before that children are ignorant barbarians, born naked and unknowing into the world. It’s up to us to teach them right from wrong. For decades we have sub-contracted the teaching of civics to those who believe that what’s enumerated in Second Amendment isn’t really a right. We need to take upon ourselves the teaching of constitutional government since government-run schools are doing such a piss-poor job of it.

*On the other hand, almost all the college age folks I talked to at the Occupy St. Louis “happening” supported the 2nd Amendment, so long as one had small magazines.

Recommended For You

27 Responses to College Students and the 2nd Amendment

  1. “And here’s the big question: how do you get to college without learning about the United States Constitution?”

    Attending pretty much any modern public school would do the trick.

    And that “mayor” is the very definition of projection in her loathsome quote. Perhaps she’s afraid of what she’d do with a gun if a lively debate opened up with a person she didn’t agree with. Since, like any good lefty, she’s all for suppressing any dissent, she knows she can’t be trusted.

    How does having an inanimate hunk of metal or polymer on your belt prevent one from thinking and exchanging ideas? What kind of pathetic tool is so frightened from an object that her mind can’t work right? What kind of petty tyrant restricts rights based on the comfort of cowards? Only you, scumbag, only you.

    • “Since, like any good lefty, she’s all for suppressing any dissent, she knows she can’t be trusted.”

      As a “lefty” (and I don’t mean southpaw, I shoot right handed) I object to this blanket statement. Doubtless the halls of academia are full of petty tyrants, but you paint with too broad a brush, and authoritarianism is not a generally leftist characteristic. That’s why we’re called Liberals.

      The Left in this country has a long, proud, history of dissent, while conservative “decent folks” kept quiet and kept their heads down. How many conservatives have been beaten by the cops over the last 100 years? How many leftists?

      • “…authoritarianism is not a generally leftist characteristic…”

        Bulls**t – whether small-l or Big-L, lefties are ALWAYS first on the scene when it comes to trying to force everybody to live THEIR way, now and always. You MAY be one of the exceedingly rare exceptions – though I rather doubt it.

        ” That’s why we’re called Liberals.”

        Also bulls**t – it’s because you long since hijacked the term from its original, correct meaning, consistent with your black-is-white, up-is-down, bass-ackwards approach to virtually everything in your misbegotten, ill-advised, unbecoming lives. There is -demonstrably – no true “liberalism” in “Liberals”, in the present day; you are the least-tolerant and most illiberal species that even resembles human beings.

        “How many conservatives have been beaten by the cops over the last 100 years? How many leftists?”

        Roughly equal numbers – and you can stop trying to reconstruct history (yet again) by putting out still more bulls**t about your “long, proud history of dissent” – whining and screeching like yours isn’t “proud dissent”, it’s just ugly, ignorant-of-history noise.

        Grow up, and get over yourself.

        • I just call them social marxists now, progressive was even too kind a word. They really hate being called socialists because even dumb people have figured out what that means.

        • J.S. –

          “you are the least-tolerant and most illiberal species that even resembles human beings.”

          Way to demonstrate tolerance, friend. You don’t know jack about me, but you’ve already decided that I’m not even human.

          “Roughly equal numbers – and you can stop trying to reconstruct history (yet again) by putting out still more bulls**t about your “long, proud history of dissent”

          Please give some examples of American conservatives suffering violent police repression for expressing themselves.

          “whining and screeching like yours isn’t “proud dissent”, it’s just ugly, ignorant-of-history noise.”

          Okay, my whining and screeching is bad, but your whining and screeching is good, but because you’re right and I’m wrong. Got it.

        • Part of the problem is that the Conservatives obey the law so they are only attacked by the police in very few cities, where the cops decide to break the law. Unlike Liberals AKA Progressives AKA Socialists AKA Marxists AKA Communists that seem to enjoy breaking the law.

          Remember that at Tea Party rallies 0 of the Tea Party members were arrested & I forget how many of the “Occupy” were arrested for doing all sorts of illegal activities. Also there is a video on YouTube where a Union member said he wasn’t on the list of people to get arrested that day indicating they planned on breaking one or more laws that day.

        • A fair point. Conservatives generally don’t engage in civil disobedience. You make my point about conservatives generally keeping their heads down, even in the face of obvious injustice, as with the Civil Rights movement. I don’t think the Jim Crow tyranny would have been overcome by people yelling at their Congressmen. Likewise the Vietnam War. You may not agree with the cause, but you have to admit that Liberals get out there and cause a ruckus, and are willing to be arrested if that’s what it takes.

          Of course when conservatives do break the law, they usually do it in spectacular fashion. Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder, Jim David Adkisson, Kevin Harpham, the KKK, and on and on. You may want to disassociate yourself from these people, but since you think “Liberals AKA Progressives AKA Socialists AKA Marxists AKA Communists” are all the same thing, I reckon I can say that every conservative is a White Supremacist Fascist terrorist, right?

          Seriously, there is a whole spectrum of political and economic thought, and I think we all benefit from a rigorous debate. The kind of all-or-nothing bomb throwing demonstrated by J.S. gets us nowhere.

        • Where are you, J.S.? I’m here, putting my (well, okay, nothing ) on the line. Let’s have a civil conversation. Unless you’re scared.

      • There’s a stark difference between old liberals like the Founding Fathers, and the scum today that call themselves liberals. Heck, even liberals of 60 years ago would be disgusted with “progressives.”

        If you call yourself a liberal in the old tradition then fine, but it’s fallen a long distance since then. A word may not change, but the definition does.

        • Not exactly true. Edmund Burke who is frequently cited as the father of modern conservatism, supported the cause of the American Revolution.

          A classic liberal is one who supports a smaller, less intrusive government a mantle that modern libertarians like to say they wear.

        • As with the Bible, the Founding Fathers can be used to justify just about any position, because they were very much in disagreement with each other about any number of issues. Not to say they aren’t worthy of study.

  2. The obstackles to campus carry are numerous.One issue is that college is populated by two groups of people among many:young people from all over the world, most of whom are stepping out from their parents’ roofs for the first time and have thus zero real world experience with the world as it is.Not only do these young minds think there’s nothing wrong with restricting guns on campus, but parents of these students who otherwise support the 2nd Amendment tend to agree with firearm restrictions at college out of a desire to eliminate ‘any and all risks’ to their little one at school. Put simply, they believe guns concealed and and open carried at the local baseball game =OK. Guns next their daughter in math class carried by a stranger at a college thousands of miles away=No Bueno.

    The second group is comprised of the college administrators and faculty who reject the values of American self determination as colonial detritus in favor of modern progressive-ism, with the attendant features of political correctness, social group think, emotionally-driven campaigns, and a committed & institutional dislike of firearms. Facts of their use are irrelevant, and citing the constitution will net you a blank stare by these elitist drones of modern academia.

    Solving the problem requires an activist pursuit at the collegiate level by the students, which means we firearm owners must EDUCATE!! And that creed must be passed to all who attend university, including my fellow GI Bill veterans out there.The more college students who are exposed to positive experiences with guns, the easier it will be to shoot down such old and purposeless infringements.

    Switching to the topic of the specific legislation in Arizona, its a farce meant to defuse the issue, and here’s why:The administrators will talk a good game about supporting ‘gun rights’, only to build the firearm lockbox ten miles away from the campus on the farthest corner of the college property the School Board can find.If the construction budget is too tight, they’ll put the box in the campus police station, which as a condition of storage will ‘require’ gun owners to pay a fee and turn over personal information and the gun to university police station.

  3. “The second group is comprised of the college administrators and faculty who reject the values of American self determination as colonial detritus in favor of modern progressive-ism, with the attendant features of political correctness, social group think, emotionally-driven campaigns, and a committed & institutional dislike of firearms. ”

    Are you saying that all people at the graduate level are guilty of this line of thinking? how many people in these types of occupations do you know personally?

    “The more college students who are exposed to positive experiences with guns, the easier it will be to shoot down such old and purposeless infringements.”

    this can apply to graduate student and faculty members as well with the right approach.

    • Yes, most of the faculty at these colleges are neo-communists and socialists. Been there and they attempted to brainwash me with that. Joined the Libertarian Party at this point in time just to torque them off. Faculty does not like Libertarians at all.

    • Yes, the faculty is usually Neo-Communist and they like to brainwash young minds. This is why I joined the Libertarians while in college.

  4. Her statement as reported by the Republic was that she “supports the Second Amendment, but said college is not the place for weapons.”

    As we all know, the word “but” really means “disregard everything I said before the word ‘but.'”

    • Agreed. It would be like a rapist saying to a young woman out strolling after dark, “Listen, I completely respect you as a woman and as a fellow human being, but I’m going to hold you down and buttrape you now.”

      • I know it’s a serious sentiment but my Family Guy sense of humor came out on that one. I’ll have to remember that line.

  5. I’m so tired of hearing that tired qualifier, “I support guns, but, (insert asinine statement here)”. Its kinda like how some companies say “We care about our employees”, that’s why they pay minimum wage and offer no benefits.

  6. “It’s (hard) to imagine encouraging a free marketplace of ideas and intellectual growth developed in an environment with a Colt 45 strapped to the hip of a student or professor,”

    It’s hard to imagine encouraging a free marketplace of ideas an intellectual growth with wackos walking around killing people uninhibited.

  7. It actually looks like Pennsylvania has already done this ̶ a provision of Act 10 of 2011 expanded the commonwealth’s preemption to include state agencies:

    “(m.3) Construction.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to:

    (2) Authorize any Commonwealth agency to regulate the possession of firearms in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this title.”

    It would seem that this means that the current bans on possession of firearms enacted by PASSHE schools are illegal. A letter was sent to WCU by a current student towards the end of December, and a reply was received as of the end of January to the effect of “we haven’t been able to find statutes that make our ban legal, but we’re still investigating, and until we’re done the ban will stand.”

Leave a Reply

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