|
|
Post by Christa on May 1, 2009 20:27:30 GMT -5
I sent the following e-mail to the Allegheny View, the school's newspaper. Hello,
My name is Christa Brashier, I'm a full time (5 classes this semester) student in the CCAC/IUP collaborative teacher education program. This is my Freshman year. I am currently acting as our Campus Leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), which I am trying to form into an official student organization.
I've been told by a woman who works in the Student Life office that others have tried to do the same, and that it has gotten turned down by the Dean of Student Development and Student Body Government every time. SCCC is a non-partisan grassroots advocacy group with over 37,000 students attending many Colleges/Universities across the nation. I need to get word out to students about this organization. Students who may be concerned about their civil liberties (the PA constitution grants the right to carry firearms on state property which includes state funded community colleges) or personal safety. I even hope to speak with those who may strongly oppose the idea, so that we can learn from each other and try to come to an understanding as to why this is such a split issue in society.
This is preparation for the "real world." I have had the opportunity to meet patriots from around Pennsylvania who have become accustomed to struggles for their constitutionally protected gun rights. I attended a rally in Harrisburg called "PA Second Amendment, Second to None" because even a very pro-gun state like Pennsylvania faces a constant bombardment of prohibitive legislation, kept at bay only by individual citizens willing to stand up and demand recognition of their rights.
I have been warned by students who agree with me, but are afraid to do so openly, that this may become a black mark on my academic profile; which is an illustration of the prevailing fear and lack of understanding about firearms I believe to be misplaced. This fear allows people to condemn those who are willing to take a stand on behalf of the fundamental precepts on which this country was founded.
As a student organization we do not wish to break any rules, or disrupt student life. We only wish to gather like minded or concerned individuals to bring the many discrepancies regarding firearms ownership into the public eye, opening a free forum for discussion and debate. The University of Pittsburgh has managed to get its chapter of the SCCC approved as an official Student Organization and as recently as November 08, they made it into local papers and Channel 4 news (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17922895/detail.html)
Everywhere I turn I am meeting with like-minded students who are afraid to speak out, as well as the very resistance that makes them afraid to speak out. I have been told that a teacher who spoke of guns in a positive way to a class was brought before a review board and nearly fired, but not told his name.
My philosophy instructor Dr. Eskridge told me (re: an unrelated topic last semester; I'm quite certain he would prefer not to endorse SCCC, though just as certain that he would fairly hear me out before telling me so) - he told me that this is academia - a place where we should feel free, and never afraid, to speak up anytime to whoever we will about anything that we believe to be important. How else are we to learn and grow? Certainly not by being afraid and hiding what we believe in or pretending that we do not because of that fear.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus does not want every student to be armed. We just want those who are legally licensed, permitted to carry a concealed firearm virtually anywhere else including church, not to be forced to disarm themselves to enter a college campus - the place that has become notorious for massacres in which gunmen move slowly and methodically from victim to victim. Under those circumstances it takes neither superhuman reflexes nor deadeye accuracy to save your life. Unless there were drastic life threatening circumstances it would be impossible to tell a campus on which concealed carry was allowed and one on which is was not (except perhaps for the higher grades, and more upbeat attitudes that come with the relief of anxiety about one's personal safety.) Look around at the people in your office, in any classroom.
That is what concealed looks like.
The state of Pennsylvania has issued LTCF's (license to conceal firearms) to some of its citizens. Studies show that citizens who have a CCW are less likely than other citizens to commit ANY crime at a rate of 5 to 1. Less often than police officers in many states.
In PA you have to be over the age of 21, pass a background check, have your picture taken and information recorded in order to get one of these licenses. Handgun sales must go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, who will also do a background check. (criminals not go through these processes) Why should a line be drawn at the college campus that those individuals cannot cross, the criminals will not follow these guidelines, so in effect you are only disarming those who follow the law. SCCC has no position on firearm carry on the campuses of high, middle, or elementary schools.
I am trying to get ten students to be my officers, so that I can apply SCCC for official status as a student organization. All that I need is for these students to be enrolled in an accredited CCAC course, and provide me with their Name, Address, QPA, and any Honors they may be carrying. This is the e-mail address I have set up for us. I have also set up a forum at communitysccc.proboards.com
I did not want to start this, but when I enrolled in college I went to concealedcampus.org to join our campuses group and found that we did not have one. In the words of Winston Churchill "I was not the lion, but it fell to me to give the lion's roar." I signed up as campus leader and have an obligation to do my best to get this started on our campus - one of the few campuses left in the US that does not have one, very likely due to the fact that most students are only at community college for 2 years.
Please consider allowing me to write a small announcement in the Allegheny View, or printing this e-mail. Please be part of academia, willing to let students flesh out our inspirations, hopes, and dreams - not part of the oppresive negative social stigma attached to firearms that allows people to make a judgement without understanding both sides of the issue.
A gunman who wants to murder as many innocent people as possible knows that a college campus is a place where no one will be armed to defend themselves. We do not even have armed guards, nor are the teachers allowed to carry firearms, and we have a completely open campus in a bad neighborhood. I have seen drug addicts wander in to use our bathrooms. I have spoken to students who are afraid, and students who are so used to carrying their firearms that they "feel naked" without them.
During WWII Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander-in-cheif of the Japanese imperial navy, is quoted as saying "you cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Our willingness to embrace the right to bear arms has served our country well; when will we allow it to serve our colleges and universities?
The Allegheny View declined my offer, preferring instead to ignore me completely. Thanks! (not that anyone actually reads it anyway) - Christa |
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 2, 2009 4:01:42 GMT -5
Isoroku Yamamoto would observe today that "you cannot invade the mainland United States as there would be a police officer or federal agent enforcing gun control behind every blade of grass, not to mention that 'grass' is sometimes a slang term for drugs which yankees are keen to regulate as to expand police power." I assume Yamamoto was not familiar with the '34 NFA or the effects of Prohibition... <preposterous> <snipped due to irrelevance> In your case, then, where you "[...] even hope to speak with those who may strongly oppose the idea, so that we can learn from each other", this almost seems dishonest as the only thing we hope to learn is what their problem is so we can figure out which plan addresses it. <snipped - irrelevance> You talk about the PA Constitution and then go on to tell us how useful and great it is, but promoting licensing flies directly in the face of that, making the original statements not only factually incorrect but also promoting a cause that tacitly rejects rather than accepts our rights. You make a case for 'hiding our shame', excepting the right to keep and bear arms from that which the campus should even consider, because it's alright to just let the unconstitutional and arbitrary licensing system make the case for people who want to protect themselves. Our 'legal license to carry' as far as the state is concerned is the 2A and or Art. I Sec. 21. You've also made mention about K-12 schools for the purposes of 'distancing' the ideology espoused here from what I can only guess are those 'dirty people who think they should just be allowed to carry anywhere they want.' It's too bad that more people don't realize that the right to keep and bear arms 'shall not be infringed' and 'shall not be questioned', and that even 18PACS912 (the controlling state statute on firearms in K-12) has the defense that a firearm may be carried for an '[other] lawful purpose'. Art. I Sec. 21 recognizes our right to bear arms in defense of the self and state, a supremely lawful purpose. <focusing the point, not shaming other liberties. Trying to accomplish a simple specific goal, revocation of the perceived collegiate administration's ability to infringe student's (who are now adult, citizens) civil liberties> It's not shameful to believe that people should be able to openly carry even in K-12 schools, and trying to 'cede' these things to appease those who you are trying to convince on your specific cause only helps to allow our opponents to rationalize their distaste for liberty wherever they can make their stand. <snipped> All I ask is that when formulating the kind of persuasive arguments you want to use to change the course of media and authority, you remain mindful that you are not helping to set up a platform against liberty in general to make a stand for this particular stepping stone. <all I ask is that when judging the attempts at freeing students from an oppressive and incorrect ideal by another individual you formulate coherent sentences, ask if you don't understand something rather than formulating an inaccurate opinion, and try very hard to remember what reality is like and understand that I am operating within its bounds> I am very sorry to hear about your troubles with this college. <thank you, please post future rants about various rights and how SCCC is subverting them by failing to demand full immediate constitutional rehabilitation throughout time and space in the general discussion board> |
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 2, 2009 22:57:44 GMT -5
There are other factual inconsistencies I forgot to mention in my prior post.
PA (through sheriffs) issues "License to Carry Firearms", not "Concealed Carry of Weapons License(/permit)". {true, and corrected wherever possible}
<snip>
irrelevant - off-topic
<snip>
I think we should not hold much stake in the age of 21 for promoting carry on campus, as I don't see why 18-21 (and younger) shouldn't be allowed to be responsible for their own protection. 10USC311 defines the age of the unorganized militia to be 17-45, suggesting that even the government promotes the 'underage' bearing arms in defense against enemies both foreign (the militia as our defense of political sovereignty) and domestic (the militia as our defense of personal sovereignty). The complaints of those who do not want to see the 'immature' in possession of firearms should have a single qualm, then, not with liberty but with education, whose recent general defiance against personal responsibility and teachings of the constitutions, and fear of arms, has probably contributed the most-greatly to any issues we have with (the idea of) armed young adults.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 4, 2009 19:23:47 GMT -5
Hello, I saw this first, so I have not yet had the opportunity to check and see if you have introduced yourself. I ought to do so, as my foremost question is "who is this?" but, I'm inclined to respond to this post first. Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to visit this forum, think about the topic posed, and respond in an informed and polite manner. I become almost giddy with every new post, as all that I actually require at this point is 10 accredited CCAC students who are interested (at the very least) in this line of discussion - although I also need for those ten students to share their name, address, QPA, and any honors that they might be carrying with me which can be done by e-mail to CommunitySCCC@gmail.com Unfortunately, your first post was somehow not formatted to wrap the text correctly; making it very difficult to read. Perhaps it was fortuitous that you met with esprit d'escalier before leaving! I'm not sure that better margins would have helped, as I do not believe I understand your fundamental point. I gather that you take issue with my CCAC SCCC Constitution, or rather that I have one. If this is the case, which it may well not be, I would have you understand that I am only trying to adhere as well as I can to campus policy. My goal is to change the rules, not to break them. According to CCAC in order to be recognized as an official student organization one needs to acquire 10 "officers" - ten students willing to give the aforementioned information - as well as a "sponsor" - any faculty member willing to sign the form for recognition as a student organization, whose responsibilities are obfuscated behind layers of policy my academic and work calendars have not yet allowed me to peruse - and submit two stapled copies of a "Constitution" and "By-Laws" which is the constitution you find on this site. Much of the discussion on the PAFOA forum, has centered around the same laws that you cite and the possibility of a preemption suit. I've paid so much attention to the PAFOA forum along with studying for finals and my job that I nearly forgot to check this board! It's been a couple of days I think. I feel terribly remiss in my duties as Campus Leader, a job for which I am not suited and hope to be rid as soon as the closest thing to an alternative candidate for the job turns up - and I will be very helpful in promoting the club and their agenda from that point onward. This club is not me, though I put my face on the fliers so that people could know who to approach; which leads me to my next point in that the intentional disassociation from k-12 has nothing to do with personal ideology but is part of the specific mission statement of the grassroots national advocacy group SCCC. You would find it on their home page at concealedcampus.org. I believe that it is necessary to fight for one's essential liberty no matter where we are, just as I understand the Constitution of the United States does not GIVE us any rights - it protects the rights that are naturally ours from infringement by those empowered with enough force to do so. This is exemplified, but by no means limited to the college campus. However, the best way that I have found to advocate my essential liberty in this context is with this specific club - just as the FIRE (who have been kind enough to assist me with violations of my 1st amendment rights at CCAC) have no affiliations with the 2nd Amendment and Education, but are quite specifically limited to the 1st Amendment in Educational environments. As for your quick analysis of FIRE; I'm not sure why you think it would matter whether a school was public or private, or how it was funded? The 1st Amendment is applicable in any of those possible situations with the exception of someone who would be being home schooled by a parent, which is why that is the drastic measure undertaken by some religious fanatics so as to limit the extent of possible exposure to ideas contrary to their teachings. I might refer again to the fact that the constitution does not GIVE us anything, it protects what is already there. Just as I've found it easier to write a story with, well, perhaps one or two sub-plots, but only one central theme - It is likely easier to to change things if by focusing on one specific thing to change at a time. Revolutions are not easy to begin intentionally; however, our system of government is devised to be altered bit by bit by those who concern themselves to do so. This is perhaps how things have gotten so out of hand, but then - the college is not the federal government. It is, in a way, designed to work the same way, but here the students should be the center, and it should certainly always be remembered that THESE students are adults. I cannot respond to your question of agency - perhaps this is an issue that the American Association of Community Colleges could explain, if you inquire: www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm as it is through them that I've begun to understand the funding of Community Colleges and why, although "community" and by "county" they are funded by the State, with some Federal assistance. I believe they are considered to be State property, but I read that from a less reputable source. I will have to look into this further. As for funding, I think that can be clarified here: www2.aacc.nche.edu/pdfs/FundingIssues.pdfWhether or not the college is state property and therefore subject to preemption has, as I mentioned, been the major topic of discussion regarding action on SCCC's principles, other than meeting once a month to have breakfast on the range with the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association at the Pittcairn Monroeville Sportsman's League. As for extending beyond schools, as per my previous statement, I have a pretty precise motive - which at the moment extends no further than "get Students for Concealed Carry on Campus officially recognized by CCAC as a student organization" because I think that is an important stepping stone, which can be realized during my brief encounter with the school - with which future students may do whatever they please. Perhaps in four years they will simply dissolve the club, or perhaps within the next ten someone with go to federal court with a preemption case. Who is to say? What exactly is your discrepancy with the colleges adherence to RTK? As I understand it the law simply regards the release of documented information regarding an individual and is designed to protect both the agency recording the information and the individual. It limits the amount of time an agency may hold on to records, which helps the individual in multiple ways including providing proof that the information will be available by a certain date, if it is required by yet a third party, limits the ability of the facility to falsify information, and so on. It also allows the institution to charge certain fees, which they might incur in postage and copies etc. Mostly, I'm sure, it is as relevant as HIPAA - in that it is essentially meaningless and designed so that legislators can point to something they did to help protect our privacy, although it changes little and does less. The college certainly has plenty of our financial records, sometimes health records as needed, as well as our academic records including any honors earned and/or disciplinary action. - Christa |
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 4, 2009 20:28:27 GMT -5
Another thing - I didn't quote you, so I cannot repeat the statement I am about to reply to. I AM genuinely interested in the views of those who completely disagree with me, and NOT simply so that I know which argument to counter them with. Your accusation was tantamount to "you don't actually listen, you just wait for your turn to speak." That is patently not the case, with me anyway. I have close friends, and relatives, who pretty strongly disagree with me. For example my boyfriend's brother works with Senator Lautenberg, NJ - who could not more thoroughly disagree with my ideals. Senator Lautenberg himself would probably consider me to be the devil incarnate.
I cannot tolerate the idea that there seem to be two sides, both of whom claim to be evidently and plainly correct, and both of whom cite "common sense" - who are in direct opposition to one another! This opposition fascinates me, just as it horrifies me. I really do want to understand how it's conceivable, for example, another student that I understood (and in all other ways respect and still understand to be) exemplary of intelligence and common sense could make the statement "all guns are bad; more guns = more violence" So, no... when I invite people to debate, I am not JUST looking for ways to undermine the opposing point of view. This is college, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing? Debating issues so that we can grasp a more comprehensive understanding of them? I find that when you understand the opposite of something, it makes it easier to understand the thing itself. This is sort of like saying "how would we know what GOOD was if there was no such thing as EVIL." but, conversely, some things remain beyond the grasp of my current understanding for example I cannot imagine "nothing" even though I can understand something or substance or the universe, It simply remains out of bounds, a bit like superstring theory. In any case I would prefer that you not make baseless personal accusations.
Also, if you think that there is not, to this day, a rifle behind every blade of grass in this country, you haven't travelled much. I own my share. My brother has something like 30 not counting his wife's, and my 12 year old nephew has a few that are considered his though they are technically/legally my sister-in-law's. When was the last time you were in Wyoming or Colorado? Texas? Eerie, PA? Crandberry, PA? These are all places where I have been in someone's backyard shooting at clay pigeons.
As for LCTF, I tend to say CCW, I'm not sure why. I don't actually know what the difference is, sorry.
I'm also not sure why you appear to be trying to contradict me when you seem to have the same essential values - namely liberty, especially those civil liberties which are protected by the constitution.
<deleted due to irrelevence>
Where do I talk about the PA constitution? I explained, perhaps I was confusing posts, in response to your other post that "the intentional disassociation from k-12 has nothing to do with personal ideology but is part of the specific mission statement of the grassroots national advocacy group SCCC. You would find it on their home page at concealedcampus.org. I believe that it is necessary to fight for one's essential liberty no matter where we are, just as I understand the Constitution of the United States does not GIVE us any rights - it protects the rights that are naturally ours from infringement by those empowered with enough force to do so. This is exemplified, but by no means limited to the college campus. However, the best way that I have found to advocate my essential liberty in this context is with this specific club - just as the FIRE (who have been kind enough to assist me with violations of my 1st amendment rights at CCAC) have no affiliations with the 2nd Amendment and Education, but are quite specifically limited to the 1st Amendment in Educational environments."
I am a student at CCAC trying to start a club; and I am no more responsible for the things the national SCCC group says than they are for the things I say - our common goal is that we do not want what is already legal in the state of PA to be denied to citizens when on college/university property whether that school be public or private, owned by the state, or, say, mormon. We have our rights, it is our duty to defend them no matter where we are. At the same time, we must act within reason!
Your statement about "hiding our shame" makes no kind of sense to me. I'll agree that our right to bear arms is clearly defined and protected by the constitution, but lets get something straight - you do not need a license to carry a gun, you need a license to conceal it. The sad fact of the matter is that the same anti-gun stigma that allowed a voting age American citizen with training and experience regarding college students (Dean Burns) to thoughtlessly trample my first amendment rights in fear of my second amendment rights, and ask me to give up my 5th amendment right not to incriminate myself (in a line of questioning as to whether or not I owned a gun, carried that gun, had ever carried it in school) etc. causes people to "freak out" when they see someone open carrying a gun from time to time. In the event of that happening there is nothing to keep a police officer from charging you with "disturbing the peace" essentially the same crime as yelling "Fire! Fire!" in a nursing home whose floors you had just waxed after pulling the rubber stoppers off the feet of all the walkers... no wait, that was a joke I heard one time.... no, yeah, that would still be the same.
I never said it was shameful in any way, nor implied it, nor believe it to be the case - for someone to open carry their firearm. I wouldn't do it, mostly because I don't want anyone to see WHERE I carry my firearm, because then they would be able to take specific pains to ensure that I could not reach it if they attacked me. This is a problem that people have with putting their holsters in the back of their pants, as well, as sometimes women are thrown down against the ground when attacked - in which case they would not be able to reach their firearm and protect themselves. I voice the licensure to the college because it seems to be the best way to get them to see my point of view - the SAME people who provide your FUNDING gave me this card that says I can carry a concealed firearm, they did a background check and everything - there is nothing to be afraid of. If I were a criminal I would not care about the rules, and that is why it is so easy to point to statistics about how much less likely A LTCF/CCW holder is to commit a crime than the average joe - and why it is useful to do so. Also, a very typical argument in response to SCCC is that teachers will become afraid - to which there are 2 responses. 1. Teachers should be able to carry also 2. When concealed, you cannot tell the difference, there would be nothing for a teacher to fear but an "idea" and that idea makes it no more or less likely that there will be weapons on campus, only possibly for the law abiding students to defend themselves.
Lighten up and calm down.
I am not sacrificing essential liberty for the sake of forming a club. (I'm not in a position of power to sacrifice anyone's liberty by my own, in any case) I am following the rules of the institution to which I attend, because I am extremely grateful for the opportunity at an education provided by the community college, and do not want them to be able to throw me out, thus ruining my academic and therefore future career. So while you can rant in an online forum about essential liberty, it obviously wouldn't accomplish anything other than my expulsion from school for me to walk into class open carrying. What would anyone get out of that? You, would get satisfaction, I suppose. Here's what I want - an open forum for debate. For you to voice your fairly radical ideals with somewhat questionable information, for people to repeat over and over that all guns are bad, for people to say "hey, let's keep an eye on Utah and see what happens.", for anyone to voice any argument they like over the subject.
As for sacrificing essential liberty, as of right now, my last official instructions from the college were not to discuss this with other students on their property. So, I'm kind of waiting for some higher ups to figure out who has better credentials before I can even start trying to rally some students towards ANY goal, let alone sacrificing a little in order to achieve a stepping stone. And NO, I'm not at the point yet where I formulate arguments to change media OR policy - I'm still trying to organize a club. 10 students, names, addresses, QPA's, honors carrying. If there isn't enough support for that - then neither of our arguments have much bearing in any case, because apparently we are the only two even making them.
PA is a SHALL ISSUE state, not a MAY ISSUE state (which usually means "may not, and probably will not issue") meaning that anyone who applies and meets the criteria will get their LCTF - what's your point? Actually you can acquire a PA LCTF at the age of 18, I hereby and officially retract my error - but I do mean to say that what is ALREADY LEGAL should not be forbidden on a college campus. I'm sorry if that is not radical enough for you, it's being difficult enough for me - at finals time, no less. I think we should hold very strongly to the idea of promoting what is already legal to continue into campus, because it 1. makes sense and 2. is something that could conceivably be accomplished. I absolutely disagree with the idea that education is promoting this stigma against firearms. I was taught the constitution in school, and i was not taught to hate guns. I think it is lunatics like the v-tech kid, and bad personal experiences, etc. that are teaching people to fear guns. Andy why shouldn't they, guns are scary! But - so is Ed Rendell! We can't just ban things because they are scary, problems do not magically dissolve when we put up signs that say they aren't allowed. The criminals don't obey those signs. Parents should be teaching their children the safe handling of firearms, the same way parents should have talks with children about safe sex. We cannot control how the vast majority of Americans choose to educate their children. We can, as adults, control how much of our civil liberties can be upheld - and we do that, mainly, by simply knowing our rights. ;D
agree or disagree with the fundamental points - IMO the best way to approach this discrepancy right now is with this club.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 4, 2009 23:29:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure that I understand the source of several of your contentions with my post. You seem to be trivializing this whole situation as 'just starting a club' while the commissions you undertake in the process of doing so actually need to be reviewed and scrutinized, since I am certainly unsure if what you're saying is what you truly desire, and maybe you are similarly unsure. There is nothing trivial about the components you need to start this club at your school.
My points, partially in regard to your letter to the school newspaper, and partially in your advocacy of SCCC, were as follows:
1) Advocating licensed concealed carry is not advocation of the constitutions, because licensing is not constitutional. (Therefore promoting SCCC would be promoting the unconstitutional even if it promoted a greater legal or social leeway in carry.)
2) Being a promoter of rights in part is fine, but exchanging one right for another is loathsome and in the form of anti-liberty.
3) Propagating factual error does injustice to a cause.
What I tried to do was to illustrate these points as I saw them through your posts. Sometimes we aren't acutely aware of our indiscretions as we type manically on the keyboard, trying to espouse our views, be our fault by training or carelessness. What I saw were some choices damaging to the cause of liberty and to the search for truth.
To review item 1, that promoting SCCC is not promoting our constitutional right to keep and bear arms:
Knowing that you are promoting the concealed carry on campus, but not the unconcealed, you persuade by licensing
yet espouse the constitution as the basis for the RKBA, including onto campuses that are 'state property' (on what basis, I'm not sure, unless that basis be 2A and Art1Sec21, which if it were that basis, would nullify the complete advocacy point of licensing)
going on to say this isn't actually an advocacy of an RKBA, just licensed carriers
which I hope you understand is a flagrant disregard to 'shall not be infringed'
<You misunderstand. This statement was intended to mean simply "guns for anyone who wants guns - no guns for anyone who does not want a gun. The 2nd Amendment does NOT say "ALL CITIZENS MUST KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" similarly SCCC does NOT want to ARM ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS>
and 'shall not be questioned'.
Do you really want to talk to students about being able to be part of a illegal licensing system so they can carry under a wicked grant of government, or do you want to have a debate about why these silly and unlawful laws get enacted in the first place? <yes America contradicts itself> All I am asking is that you think about your thoughts on liberty and the constitution and if they have ANY relation whatsoever to this advocacy, and that you probably shouldn't be confusing people who are especially unknowledgable on the matter that licensing has some relation to the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't. <Now that I've "thought about my thoughts" I would ask that if you do not understand either be silent or learn. Your comments are largely unrelated to the ideals of this club, and entirely unrelated to the topic of this post. You're sentences run on and are difficult to read. You are offended by those attempting to gain some liberty because it forces the admission that we have lost some of our liberty to begin with. Please take reality into consideration before berating the hard-won efforts of others>
<snipped due to irrelevance>
As another example, I found no discernible purpose in selling SCCC by including its stance on K-12 carry. It's only purpose felt to me like you were trying to say 'we're not crazy gun zealots' even though there was nothing elsewhere in your letter that lended hand to that mention. You say or should have said elsewhere that the organization is an organization for college students on the matter of college campuses, avoiding the implantation into others minds that something is wrong with K-12 carry or advocation of it.
<you are putting ideas into a letter where they are not. The mention of k-12 is purely to focus the ideals of the group, not to berate the ideals of freedom>
Be careful in your persuasions that you are not selling concealed carry at the cost of open carry or the RKBA in whole, or are supporting an organization who makes those kind of assuages to reach their goals in lobbying legislatures at the cost of our entire right.
<it would be difficult for me to do so, given that I have not yet gotten past the infringement of my 1st amendment rights in order to do ANYTHING regarding 2A, but I assure you - no liberty will be sacrificed>
<snipped due to irrelevance, please post these ideas in the general board. I apologize if I have posted any misleading or incorrect information and will be happy to correct it. I do not have the gun laws memorized. I'm just a college freshman who wants her college to refrain from infringing her right to protect herself.>
-----
The issue of agency <snipped due to irrelevance and complete lack of literate sense.>
---
As an aside: Tell me, did you have a Government class K-12 like you had reading, writing, science, and math? <YES, it's called Social Studies and has been part of the standard academic curriculum since time immemorial> There are a lot of people who 'know their rights' yet don't do shit about them. The USA is the greatest nation in the world not because we are the most free but because we are the most placated and complacent. We have embraced incrementalism such that our power to effect polity (in doing such things as voting or serving on juries or running for office) hasn't necessarily been completely taken away from us yet we have learned helplessness and are unwilling to take back our system. I somehow think espousing the constitutions for longer than a brief mention in school would provide not only a profitable understanding of government, law, and constitution, and make us more eager to act, but to also instill a moral foundation to improve our society which might be picked up as a result of teaching the bases for our legal system (i.e. natural law and such things). To blame our societal issues on the already-done shooters and the fear from 'personal events' suggests a schema has not been built that can handle this information, and so it is indeed a failure of education to provide an improvement on the faculty of logic and reason, whose needs for knowledge only allow the faculties to be more well-rounded. <I considered deleting this due to irrelevance but it's lack of literate sense disallows my capability to determine relevance. What does this have to do with the refusal/failure of a school newsletter to acknowledge a student's request? In the elementary school I attended we recited the articles of the confederation every morning. We were quite thoroughly taught the constitution. I apologize for your education - the evident failure of your primary education is one of the main reasons I aspire to teach.>
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 5, 2009 14:16:10 GMT -5
I will read your post in full when I am finished with finals. For now what I have to say is that you are mixing up things that I say with directly copied SCCC literature, and your main arguments seem to be against them. What I am saying is that while it is nice to imagine a completely unhindered RTKBA and propose the advocacy of nothing less, I fail to understand how it is contrary to that position to start from the position I am currently in and take it step by step. Right now I am a student at Community College of Allegheny County. Though to the dismay of D.C. and several very old men who "serve" our government, the supreme court very recently mulled over the 2nd amendment and came to some thoroughly defined decisions - namely that 2A DOES protect and individual's right to carry firearms FOR SELF DEFENSE. I live in [time where this] a city, inside of a state, that is part of a country, with specific (at the moment, with utter disrespect to the PA Constitution) city, state, and federal firearms laws. In order for the constitution to protect your rights, you must be a citizen of the united states of America. To maintain all of those rights, a law abiding one, at that. So, currently, I live in a city that implicitly (though not explicitly, and the PAFOA open carry dinners address this public opinion in variance with the law) denies the right to openly carry a firearm, and offers licenses to carry concealed firearms. I also attend a college that (at the moment, with utter disrespect to the PA Constitution) explicitly denies the right to bear arms on campus property - although, legally, it is State property. This is fitting with the campus policies of other colleges in the state, located on both state and private property. I don't know what you would propose that would wave a magic wand and give everyone the utmost freedom all at once, maybe it's further into your post and I'll find out later this week, but I already voted for Ron Paul. I'm basically saying that I am doing the best I can to fight for everyone's rights, and that involves starting somewhere. Since i chose to start by forming this club and have already met opposition and further disregard for my (1st Amendment, this time) rights - there is a clear threshold that must be crossed in order to continue any further. That is the forming of this club. While there is no indecisiveness or discrepancy in my personal beliefs vs. my actions - there is a HUGE discrepancy between our constitutional rights and the way society actually functions. It was chipped away slowly, over time, so that many people did not even notice that it was happening; it is not going to be fixed with one sweeping gesture (unless, maybe, we manage to elect Ron Paul) ... back to studying for finals. My wisdom teeth impacted and my birthday is on the 15th, life is going nuts! You seem very intelligent, and I'm glad to have you on the side of civil liberties - I promise you my full attention once finals are completed. I don't see why we need disagree on anything, and as a matter of fact I'm fairly certain that we don't but there is possibly some of what R.A.Wilson referred to as "cosmic noise" in our communication. Yours in Liberty, Christa  |
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 5, 2009 19:25:35 GMT -5
The understanding that I have gained from reading your posts here and on PAFOA is that you believe in the constitutions and expect their respect from the state and therefore the school. Further, this notion manifests itself in the above letter that it appears you wrote. Since I thought YOU wrote it, what you said is material in deciding if your means are useful and correct to your ends.
The apparent functional manifestation of your belief is that advancing a cause will contribute to your liberty. As I see it, in reaching for a cause you grasped onto SCCC. My first challenge, because I would not just take you and your goals at face value, is whether your means are consistent with your goals. Maybe I'm mistaken that your goal is liberty entire, but that's what I read from things that you typed.
Because you are taking on some of the values of SCCC in order to promote their name, apparently for the final achievement of 'concealed carry on campus', you may have inserted some of their 'literature excerpts' in your letter. I didn't go to the SCCC website and read about SCCC; nearly every thing I know about them came from you. Because you wrote the letter to the newspaper, and because you are a vehicle by which SCCC's goals are being proliferated, I confront you on this matter, in case you have simply picked 'something' and not 'the best thing'. If you were for carry, or liberty, would you just reach out for any organization? Would the Violence Policy Center or CeaseFirePA be 'close enough' because of their work with 'firearms policy issues'? I hope you can see that there is some substance between 'a cause' and 'an action' that would have considerable effect on direction of its results.
I'm not telling you to quit adopting the SCCC cause simply because I think it advances the opposite kind of philosophy than the one I think we ought to desire, namely 'grants of state', even when they feel nice, in place of liberty. I'm telling you to examine whether that apparent conflict, as I have presented it to you, might be grounds for reconsideration of your cause. You might adopt this cause or some similar cause or another cause or no cause, but regardless of that you should maintain a meaningfully sound moral position, rather than looking for 'any cause' that might suit your ends.
Once you determine your cause, I advised further that one should avoid promoting a cause that trades rights rather than simply promotes ones with particularity. I can see where I may have made that a fuzzy notion, as I mentioned such an idea both on the matter of its influence as it might affect government and on the matter of its influence as it might affect society. I would want you to look at it like this (as an example of a trade): Don't trade open carry for concealed carry when working with our government to make law/regulation; don't create a schema for people to trade open carry for concealed carry, in their minds, when you're trying to persuade them. (As a note about 'trading' and government: When working with government as a voter/lobbyist/whatever where you have leverage, 'trading' is where you say its alright to give away some of that leverage for an outcome that infringes on rights.)
Having scrutinized yourself, the next step is to be the most credible person you can be in furthering your cause. I suggested that factual errors, which I tried to point out and respond to with potential factual resolutions, could not only mislead people but could have them realize you are not to be trusted for the facts as they relate to your cause. That can be stonewalling when you're trying to persuade someone.
There are always better ways to say things and sometimes it takes a rereading to say 'well, that is less persuasive or an argument less strong than it could be.' The joy of forum (in general) is that we can read and excerpt better ideas along the way as we read on topic matter we're interested in, and apply the better strategies and arguments we picked up, and sometimes we don't get those down the first time we type up a persuasion piece. Clearly I didn't get it right the first time I tried to persuade you on my few points.
Factual fixes and augmentations will only help your cause whatever it may be. That is also why I suggested expanding your knowledge and line of reasoning on 'agency'.
As for the advancement of liberty in the face of adversity, you nor I nor everyone else is 'doing enough' because if they were, we'd not have this problem. That's not to say that what some are doing is certainly not advantageous and advancing, and surely without some of what has been done, we could be in a far worse place than we are now, and without that help but more augmented, we can't get to where we want to be. However, we could also be in a far better place, and there is always more to sacrifice so that we might sooner have the liberty we are so long indebted. When I look at some of the 'sacrifice' we make, I look at risk mitigation and the kind of things we chance when we do things like 'compromise'. Of the many levels and kinds of sacrifice we might make for liberty, compromise often seems antithetical to what we claim are our ultimate goals. Among the other things we do that don't make sense are hoping we can one-off liberty on one man, that maybe if we just get lucky someone can top-down fix our nation.
Anyway, the road to our original liberty, I suspect, is going to be best met with greater personal trades instead of philosophical trades as people become more enlightened. I try to persuade people into that understanding, as I am doing here. Maybe you aren't ready to devote your life today to the monastery of righteousness; lord knows I haven't, I haven't looked up every organization I've ever had contact with just so I could scorn them for being related to another organization who doesn't allow guns on their property, and I haven't made sure I'm not buying goods anywhere that has ever scorned guns or whatever other right/freedom, and I didn't trade my education for this cause (and therefore I may not have voted with my dollar) but what we seem to be so unwilling to contemplate is that these kind of 'rash' things are the foremost compelling. The fact is that no one wants to be the first person to stand up and make the considerable sacrifice -- they want to live comfortably. Sometimes that means being unwilling to give up just one pack of cigarettes or a lavish meal up to the company/companionship of one or more people. The collective power of all the 'small guys' making the seemingly unfathomable (to today's world) sacrifices is great but unrealized.
So I'm not even asking you to give up your education to fight for the righteous liberty. I'm saying that you should be mindful of 'trimming the fat' where you can and sometimes that just starts with introspection. In the end, you might not give up college but you might give up SCCC and choose a 'superior' alternate cause (and I don't suggest this as an example outcome because I KNOW SCCC is at odds with a constitutional outcome, only that I think it might be possible, but particularly that it seems to be at odds with your desired outcome), or you might just take that one more moment to ditch an argument that starts a bad seed in the head of the unknowledgable to replace it with one that not only strengthens your foremost purpose but has an auxiliary effect of promoting liberty entirely, and that bit more of work might be just one sacrifice on a long list of the sacrifices of everyone that better brings all of us where we want and ought to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 6, 2009 14:10:21 GMT -5
please move this last post into the general discussion area, where I will be happy to address your concerns (after finals) or it will be deleted.
When you do so, please enlighten me as to what actions you are taking to ensure greater individual freedom that so encourages you to discredit my efforts, and exactly what it is you think I might do better? Constructive criticism is more than welcome, criticism based on what seem to be falsehoods which also misrepresent my ideals and attempt to tell me what I think about something without any mention of what might be done better doesn't help anyone. Except you, if you were bored, and felt the need to attack someone through a message board.
- Christa
|
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 6, 2009 23:11:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you intend to ever go any direction that you haven't decided RIGHT NOW if you suggest that any analysis of your undertakings are an 'attack'. If you do NOTHING to change what you're doing in light of my postings, then you've lost nothing, since the kind of forum you're encouraging is one where you going to get pissed off about other people commenting on what you're doing. It's going to happen. Are you just going to write it off as 'attacks' so you don't have actually consider moral justifications for your actions? What point would the 'discussion' be that you're looking for if you only want to advocate exactly what you believe now in a stagnant form?
I took what YOU wrote and responded to it. You did the first part, seemingly putting out some of your own reasons and justifications which I then related to your apparent cause. I had assumed you aren't running in autopilot and that there was room for comment. I thought that this opportunity for advisement MIGHT lead you to reconsider if not change your mind about some of what you're doing and what you have planned. YOU put the indicators in what YOU wrote.
My posts are particularly relevant to your letter, so maybe you should move both the letter and the responses you feel should be moved to the general board, since you're the administrator of the board. I put my responses here because they are related to the letter and therefore my responses fit on this thread. In fact, you've tried to respond to posts that I've made on OTHER threads, instead on this thread, even though the thread is about only your letter.
I would suggest that if you don't want any visibility of what you're doing that you close this board, or if you don't want any comment that you disable posting from all users. However, I garnered through THINGS THAT YOU WROTE that this wasn't the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 13, 2009 22:01:55 GMT -5
I apologize, I was unable to find the time to properly reply to your posts during the week of finals, i attempted an initial address - but you immediately delved rather in depth into the situation and, I confess, confused me on several points. I may have pointed out that I would get back to this after finals - I was under a lot of stress, but that's no excuse the disregard the thoughtful response of another to an idea that I've gone so far as to publish an online forum for. I'm not going to sacrifice my education for my liberty because I do not believe anyone should have to make that choice - but I also will not break the rules, because I value the education that I can afford from community college. I also will not just put my head down and go through school - I will stand up for what I believe in, and I will do it in the ways that I find best. I "latched" on to SCCC, because I completely agree with their cause. Licensing is not the problem, as it is legal to open-carry a firearm in the state of PA just like it is *legal* to carry a firearm on college campus. However, it does cause some disturbances, there are advantages to concealed carry (I myself have never open-carried, and you can call me names for that if you like... however, some people won't go on roller coasters, I consider the two to be parallel and not worth name-calling but for children), and I am personally afraid for my safety on campus and would like to be allowed to carry my firearm concealed just as I can at the bank, etc. I would carry mine concealed. I don't mean to say that the right to keep and bear arms should be reduced to the right to hide your gun if you've completed an application - I mean to say that I am bringing up a point of contention whereby I would like to carry a concealed firearm, and the college has policies against it, and here is this ready made national advocacy group for precisely that disagreement. That is why I chose them, regardless of essential liberty. If you want to call that trading rights, you're being inaccurate. If you want to call it selfishness, sure... fine... but I'm juggling a full time career, a full time college career, and my family life. I dare you to find many people doing as much who are willing to stand up for or to anyone or anything. I recently created a pie chart of my scheduled activities, online, for two weeks - the week leading up to and the week of finals. It left me with 22 total non-sequential minutes of free time. In that time I communicated with the FIRE, and began planning a Second Amendment Rights Gala - which I will have finished the website for soon. The thought behind this gala is to hold it in a public setting in pittsburgh, and, like the PAFOA open-carry dinners which I attend (there is one this Saturday the 16th at 6:30 pm at a buffet in Cranberry for the benefit of Firearm Owners Against Crime), will hopefully aid in de-stigmatizing the idea of firearms as being somehow inherently evil. This event will have many organizations participating in it, and is for the greater cause of Second Amendment Rights, rather than the lesser cause of SCCC although I will have a presence there as SCCC. It is through these many smaller, perhaps too narrowly focused, organizations that people uphold the constant attacks on our liberties. The ACLU doesn't care about 2nd Amendment rights except where they cross with other rights, the NRA doesn't care about anything else and despite their political trade-offs at least they get things done and are well known, the FIRE only stands up for 1st amendment rights in education... I haven't found organizations other than the JPFO and Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty that support the entire bill of rights. They tend to pick and choose. Here I have chosen one right that I would like to have for a specific reason. I do not feel safe on campus. If they cannot protect me I should be allowed to protect myself. I'm sorry if that's not extreme enough for you - I literally do the best I can with the time I have. I did copy, writ, some of the material from SCCC - and I apologize for the confusion, as well as for accusing you of confusing my words with theirs. Honestly, I guess I better go back and read the letter. My complaint here was about their refusal to even acknowledge me, or communicate with me, and I lost sight of the fact that posting the e-mail left its content open to criticism. I suppose I confused on and off topic. I am also getting my wisdom teeth out in a few days and have been in constant pain, I've been touchy; your posts seemed to try to immediately tear my ideals down and criticize them at a time when I was absolutely the most preoccupied with things other than this forum. I do agree with SCCC, and hope they accomplish their goals - which has nothing to do with my fundamental core of morality. Of course I would like every one of my actions be an act that helps restore and protect the fundamental liberty of all of mankind; unfortunately society has already developed around me, and in order to be taken seriously and ever accomplish anything, I must work somewhat within the bounds of the created societal limitations. Therefore I must choose actions which as closely uphold these values while still being within the realm of possibility and achievement. Again, I apologize if that is not extreme enough for you. I was entirely at fault and rude to you regarding your posts. the one before your last one was much easier to comprehend, possibly because you were more thoughtful when writing it, possibly because I had the time to read and understand it, or maybe even a combination of these things - or maybe it's all an illusion, I don't know. I know that I don't want to be a victimized because criminals are well aware that campuses deny students the "privilege" of carrying a firearms - and this is why you get news stories featuring "campus-stalkers" or "campus-rapists" while you don't see the same applied to zoos or public libraries. I also know that SCCC is accomplishing this feat for some students, and that working with them it is possible that I will make headway in helping Pennsylvania students re-gain the right to carry arms in defense of self - as is stated in the PA constitution - whether open or concealed, permitted or unregulated, my first and foremost concern is for safety. More guns does not equal more violence, more gun-free zones DOES. I believe that, and furthermore - I disagree with those who believe that is a belief since there is statistical data available to prove that it is consistently the case, but they are allowed to say it. Sorry about the confusion, can we begin again on better footing? I hope you will attend the Pittsburgh Second Amendment Rights gala event which I am putting together. I may wind up eating a huge expense to make it happen, or it may wind up well funded, I won't know until its been done. But I do know that I'm willing to take that risk. I'm willing to spend money, I'm willing to stand up and explain myself (when I have the time) to anyone that wants to know what I'm about. I don't think that supporting a cause that isn't 100% focused on the entire bill of rights undermines liberty. That, to me, sounds like saying "recycling only half of your recyclable garbage is harmful to the environment" unless I were in some position to "trade" rights - which I'm not, as I have no rights whatsoever... so what do I have to trade? If I can manage to open the discussion about concealed carry on campus, and the next generation of students can manage to see it happen during their college career, and the generation after that begins to push for open carry... that's worth fighting for. If that's possible but instead all I do is cause a brief commotion after which everyone goes back to just the way things were... it will still have been worth fighting for. I refuse to choose between education and essential liberty. I refuse to quietly obey when doing so puts my life in jeopardy. I refuse to break the rules thus disrespecting an organization providing me an opportunity at a career as well as proving myself to be "wrong" and thus undermining my cause anyway. I'm not asking you to accept my beliefs as writ and take them to be your own beliefs. I'm just putting my beliefs out there - too many other students are actually AFRAID to say anything about this in spite of fervent agreement. Someone has to say something. I'm saying something. Where is your CCAC Constitutionalist Club? I'll join it. - Christa  |
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 13, 2009 22:36:00 GMT -5
I guess, central to this discrepancy is the fact that my preference for concealed carry never led me to question the mission statement of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. It never even occurred to me "why not Students for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on Campus?" but I understand the concept, and would certainly agree with it; though I am personally uncomfortable wearing my firearm unconcealed, I've never done it yet. Then again, I've been against guns most of my life. I mean actually one of the people who thought it boiled down simply to "guns = bad" until I realized that I was just uniformed. College is supposed to be the place where we encounter these sorts of new ideas and understandings, but instead I encountered it within my own family before attending college. I had already heard of SCCC, and simply wanted to join the CCAC's club - but they did not have one. I believe that they find an easy talking point, when dealing with colleges, in the fact that "concealed carry" looks no different than no weapons allowed - so that people who continue to disagree with guns on campus will no have to feel fear or anxiety, as there would be no noticeable difference. I can see how that can be percieved as a trade-off of rights, but I counter with the lack of any rights we currently have to bargain with. Any college can dismiss a student at any time for any reason - just like how, in PA, any employer can fire and employee for any* reason at any time. Even "I didn't like her hairstyle" just *not because of their religion, race, or sexual orientation.... and maybe some other stuff, I don't remember. In any case I have admitted that I never intended to be this Campus Leader, and that I would gladly vote for a better candidate once we've become an official club, but that as long as I am I'll do my best for us - beginning with making this an official student club, which can hopefully lead to some funding to do some useful things. Any change made now regarding this by the college administration must be for the better, since the current situation is a complete revocation of rights. I do not believe that every trade-off is a bad one. Not every war can be won in just one battle. I'm sorry if you disagree, since you're obviously fervent enough to be tremendously useful to any organization that you supported. Thanks for visiting the site - I hope I didn't scare you away with my previous finals-pms-dental-pain bad attitude and lack of understanding, and that you'll respond to these messages. I, usually, am genuinely interested in the opinions and explanations of even those who completely disagree with me. This has been a hard, and tricky past few weeks. If I don't get an infection, and this 2A gala goes off well, it'll have been a success. I already know I managed the grades I needed  (which was actively my first priority around the time I was called into Dean Burns' office) - Christa |
|
|
|
Post by readingsomestuff on May 14, 2009 4:47:15 GMT -5
Here is an example of trading rights:
10 students pay 10k a year for 1 year of education, money the college then uses for whatever important need they have. The student can choose to pay and be educated or to withhold their money (and perhaps give it to another institution.) This is power.
The students and the school come to the bargaining table, one that couldn't exist without the students, and therefore they bring their power to the table. They want 'right to bear arms on campus' (among other things which do not seem supremely relevant to the bargaining). The college says "we'll give you 'right to bear arms on campus' and it must come with 'no student shall speak to another student about religion without prior permission from the dean'". To act with their power by accepting this and continuing to pay the school is essentially offering their power up to receive RKBA but to also give free speech/assembly/religion.
It's exactly the same where a legislative bill can't come to fruition without the involvement of the NRA, and the NRA, with their power whatever it is derived from, supports the bill that avoids the ban of shotguns but bans machine guns. They put their weight behind banning machine guns, power that had been delegated to them by others, and a power they now wield at the bargaining table.
Trading isn't throwing power only behind the subsection, it's throwing the power behind that and something else deleterious provided in the same package. It's because when those who wield power have historically made those trades that we must make sacrifice today. We should see those 10 students above, if their ultimate goal is liberty, balk at the above-mentioned option college has given to them. It starts with 'no' but might have to end by withholding each of their 10ks.
Luckily that isn't exactly the situation you're in now. If, however, that offer comes up to the table along the way, putting your power, which you do indeed have, behind anything but 'no' for what is really a trade would not be resonant with what you're saying, i.e. "I do want liberty."
Therefore, a trade is not those 10 students coming to the table with their money and their only offer, from their current situation which is no right to bear, is to a situation where 'you may bear only concealed'. To put ones power behind that isn't a sacrifice to the general liberty and thus isn't a the type of 'trading' I speak of.
(And then, the trading of rights via power is a separate subject from the projection of information that seems dissonant (ex: where I had pointed out your promotions of constitutions (such as that found in your letter and perhaps your posts here or on PAFOA) being at odds with your promotion of licensing (via SCCC.))
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 19, 2009 19:26:12 GMT -5
I *think* (I say this because we've already had some cosmic noise, and because you cannot tell intonation on this board) that I completely agree with you. I would absolutely not trade my 1st amendment rights for my 2nd, or 4th or 5th or anything at all. But that's a moot point for several reasons.
The first is that the constitution doesn't GIVE us anything, it protects rights which are natural and inherent. So IMO there is no way to "trade" a right, there is only the possibility of ignoring the infringement of these right by those in any power to do so. It should be obvious to you by now, that I'm not willing to do that. Otherwise, I wouldn't have these problems.
Another is the one I already mentioned and you repeated, whereby I'm not asking for something because it's the most enlightened possible goal - but because it is actually possible to fulfill this goal. Currently we have no rights. In Utah the preemption lawsuit made it all the way to the federal courts who decided that State colleges are not permitted to infringe the students rights to defend themselves. Now concealed carry is legal at any State University in Utah. The same legislation would be applicable to the PA constitution, and I hope to be involved in helping it get passed when it is written. I was speaking to Kim Stolfer about this at the Firearm Owners Against Crime dinner on the 16th. He's the #1 2A speaker in PA, and recently helped push legislation through so that it is now legal to carry (yes even open carry) at point state park. You can think of it as a stepping stone, but it won't be anything if we cannot get it started.
Naturally there will be things we disagree on. We're only students, we're only people. The important thing to keep in mind is what we do agree on, and the sorts of things we can achieve if we work together towards those goals. That's the way to accomplish things.
I don't think the licensing for concealed carry is constitutionally sound but at the same time it's perfectly legal to carry openly in Pennsylvania. I think that the more we work towards improving and protecting freedom and legislation from way those who have even a modicum of power over others tend to distort it the better things will get.
There is a greater chance now that private universities in Utah will follow the example set by the supreme court at the state schools; hopefully we'll be hearing about freedom loving students who choose to go to Utah State University rather than what would have been the school of their choice so that they can feel safer who let the administrators of the college they would have gone to, the public, and the media know it. Right now we can take a stand to help this move forward by increasing public awareness of college students who care about the right to bear arms.
To that end I'm planning a Second Amendment Rights gala event, to take place after the start of the Fall semester. There has been some discussion about having it at Point State Park. I didn't want to take Sam Gupta up on his offer of using a nice facility at Pitt, because then we would be holding a celebration of our Second Amendment rights in a place that didn't uphold them and everyone would be forced to disarm to attend. I hope to flood the city streets with positive images regarding firearm ownership.
The best thing to do at this point is try to educate as many people as possible. The bias against firearms is made up of ignorance. People fear them, so they put up signs that say NO. They fear them because the news is full of stories about criminals (who will certainly not abide by the signs, if they can read them - since crime and lack of education also go hand in hand) who use guns to do bad things. Rarely do we hear the story of a heroic deed done by a citizen bearing arms, which is partially media bias, and partially because of the very thing that makes SCCC easier to pitch to a college administration than just a "Gun Club" (such as Carnegie Mellon University has) - namely that citizens who carry concealed firearms do not think of themselves as crime-fighters.
We aren't looking for a reason to use them, we hope never to have to use them. You don't put a spare tire in your car because you're going looking for a flat tire. The administration of CCAC wouldn't have looked twice if I were promoting police and their use of firearms. The police are going hunting for the criminals, I just want to carry my trained method of self defense when I'm walking across the unlit path to the parking lot on the North Side. It's all well and good to have faith in your local police, but that doesn't preclude the RTKBA. When only the police have guns, that's called a police state.
This reminds me of a quote people attribute to Thomas Jefferson
"Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote."
I believe in LIBERTY. I'm not *just* pro-gun. The Second Amendment isn't even the most important part of American politics vs. Liberty to me. I'm personally more interested in economics, fiat currency, and how the Federal reserve is a non-government organization with ultimate power over the American monetary system without being held accountable to the American people - the constitution says that no state shall make any thing but gold or silver coin a payment in tender of debt, and now we have no standard by which our currency is set and the Fed just prints money when they need it, devaluing everyone's currency and turning elderly women's retirement funds into pittances. I haven't exactly tried to insist on being paid in silver coin, or paying my tuition in gold, but I have written letters and sent faxes to my congressmen and state senators asking them to support HR1207. HR1207 is a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and force them to have completely transparent operations so that the American people can oversee them. Thanks to concerned citizens like myself HR1207 has over 150 cosponsors. I'm also concerned about states rights, because I don't think America is without cultural boundaries that mean different places SHOULD have different laws, for the same reasons that the department of education is failing America's youth. Education shouldn't have the same standard everywhere. There are fundamental and OBVIOUS cultural differences which have an impact on learning.
That's not why I'm here, though. That's not what this club or this forum is for.
Please don't accuse me of, or imply that I am not upholding freedom because you happened to find a very specific example of it and a lot more examples of organizations who uphold one right at the expense of another. Even if I were guilty of that, and to the best of my knowledge I am not, I still don't see why it would be grounds for argument here. That's just not what this is about.
Hopefully that sets things straight? Otherwise, please feel free to e-mail me at CommunitySCCC@gmail.com and we can continue this discussion.
Yours in liberty,
Christa
|
|
|
|
Post by Christa on May 27, 2009 11:49:26 GMT -5
Kim Stolfer from Firearms Owners Against Crime has been generous enough to offer his services in an "activism workshop" at the gala event which I am planning for this Fall. He will show us exactly what is involved in lobbying the government. Hopefully we're creating a new generation of people who will lobby the government to protect our liberty. - Christa |
|
(which was actively my first priority around the time I was called into Dean Burns' office)