Members of “Gun Free UH,” a large and growing collective, recently released an Open Letter to President and Chancellor Renu Khator, all members of the UH Board of Regents and Student Government Association President Shaun Theriot-Smith that requests to keep guns off campus and out of classrooms and dorms.
History senior Alex Colvin has spearheaded the movement and wrote the initial first draft of the letter. Colvin said there have been numerous contributors among faculty and staff as well – the letter is signed by 150 students, faculty, staff, alumni and parents. An additional 600 supporters have already signed a Change.org petition denouncing S.B. 11, the bill that allows for campus carry on college campuses.
“We are united in our repudiation of an unjust law – we recognize that S.B. 11 is now the law and we must work within it (but) we will continue to be the voice of dissent against it,” Colvin said. “(To) those to whom it is addressed, particularly our President, Dr. Renu Khator must use her powers to keep guns out of our classrooms, dorms, and offices… (we) recognize there is consensus among gun violence scientists that gun violence in our country has reached epidemic proportions and we must be vigilant in our efforts to curb it.”
The bill is due to take effect on August 1, 2016. UH is currently in the process of deciding on a campus carry policy in accordance with the bill.
Cougar News Services is actively seeking comments from President Khator.
Thank you Alex Colvin for your efforts to keep guns off campus. Can you add a link for the Change.org petition that denounces the bill that allows for campus carry on college campuses? I was unable to find it.
Yes, thank you for your uninformed and ill-conceived efforts to deny law-abiding citizens their Constitutional rights.
More guns is not the solution Randy.
Really? So let’s just wish and hope they aren’t killed by a crazy gunman cause that is all the help they will have if a crazy gunman enters the school. Tell me this, if you were there and a gunman was coming to shoot you, would you then wish and hope for a gun? No need lying to me cause we both know what your real answer would be if it happened to you! 🙂
Somehow I’ve been at the same school for over three years. No crazy gun men so far. Gee, thanks for the paranoid warning. I’ll also keep a sharp eye out for falling pieces of SkyLab which is just as likely to kill me.
The question in play is not more guns, but rather who gets to decide what is enough, who can have them and where they can have them. “shall not be infringed” means none of those questions are valid unless decided by each citizen for themselves.
There is more to the Second Amendment and the culture and political climate that created it, than your ill-informed 4-word caricature would imply. Secondly, the Heller decision recognized the state’s right to regulate guns in “sensitive” places such as schools. But don’t take my word for it. Read Scalia’s words for yourself: ““Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Got it now? Or do you just plan to ignore that the way you ignore the other parts of the 2nd Amendment, too because it doesn’t fit the ALEC-driven Constitutional Carry guns everywhere agenda?
Scalia was just saying those restrictions were not the current focus of their opinion.
You have no constitutional right to carry a gun at school. In DC v Heller (2008), the majority specifically reaffirmed the Court’s respect for “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”.
That tradition has roots from as far back as 1824, when both Thomas Jefferson and Second Amendment author James Madison banned guns from the UVa campus:
“No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gun-powder; nor keep a servant, horse or dog.”
JAMES MADISON, Rector
December, 1826 (Enactments by the Rector and Visitors of The University of Virginia, For Constituting, Governing And Conducting That Institution. Chapter VI. Police.)
So’s who’s “uninformed”, again?
It’s a state issue not federal sorry
Okay.
When the Supreme Court began striking down “Free Speech Zones,” they listed in their reasoning that constitutional rights do not end at the edge of a campus property line, they extend on to it and the university has no right to smother them.
The right to bear arms is no different than your right to free speech, they are intertwined and grew up together.
How poetic. Prohibiting firearms = smother (kill something that’s helpless and vulnerable). “[I]ntertwined and grew up together”? This goes beyond propaganda. You definitely have a fetish.
Law-abiding citizens, which included many gun-owners, are not so sociopathic they think they need a gun to walk around everyday because of imaginary danger. To suggest such a thing and call it “Law-abiding” or self-defense makes you the reason we need tight gun control. To protect innocent citizens against crazies like you.
If you believe the dangers are imaginary, then you are hiding under a rock.
http://gunssavelives.net/tag/tx
If you belive your fears are real, I suggest you take up that argument with a good psychotherapist who will likely disagree. If schools were so dangerous one required a gun just to attend, the logical thing to do would be to stay away. Any college so dangerous that students must be armed to be in class is a school that deserves to be closed as a health hazard.
No fears, but I see you didn’t bother to follow my link.
And let’s hope and wish no one comes in and shoots all the kids left gun-less cause hoping and wishing they are safe is all the help they will have! Makes great sense to me.
You mean, no one like you who’s so paranoid he thinks kids should come to class armed. You’re a psycho. And no, the Heller decision said nothing about being armed in class; it allows an individual to defend himself in his home when his life is in mortal danger.
I bet all those people who survived the past mass shootings, wouldn’t think it paranoid to carry a gun to their classrooms!
I was shot 7 times by my neighbor, whom was a retired deputy sheriff. He had went crazy.
You never know when or where, things like this will happen, so, you can either be someone armed and there to protect the good people around you, or you can be the one being protected! But don’t limit the choices of good people, whom only want to protect those who are not armed!!
You have called me names, stated that I’m paranoid, etc. All over a comment thread that seems to have gotten you angry. I don’t know for certain, but I’ve been told that this behavior comes from people who are losing a debate and have nothing else of substance to reply back?
You didn’t really answer on whether or not you would want a gun, if someone was coming towards you with one and going to kill you? I know for a fact that when I got shot, my only thoughts were, I don’t have anything to protect me! I was lucky to have lived! Most cannot say that!
English grammar is not your friend. Your paranoia of thinking lethal danger is everywhere is precisely what I’m describing. Thanks for showing what I meant. Most good psychotherapists will tell you paranoid people will always be combative and pugnacious when it comes to defending their paranoia: it’s what makes them paranoid. And there are many people who’ve survived a live shooter not because they used a gun, but because they were smart enough to know how to avoid danger to begin with by working with police rather than thinking they owe it to the world to act as self-appointed gun-toting executioners.
See, there you go again…calling me names, etc! Just so you know, my wife has a 2 masters degrees in psychology! And she thinks the same way I do! You have no idea what it is like to be shot at and therefor you do not know what you are talking about! Working with the police… only works if you survive the attack! Carrying a gun is not something people do because they are looking for trouble!
You would simply die if a gunman came at you! The police wouldn’t make it in time for you to “work with them!” These people that survived a live shooter that you are talking about is simply something you made up! Avoid danger by working with the police? Tell those kids in the grade school how to avoid danger! They are all dead now and you say it is because they didn’t know how to avoid danger? There will always be guns in this country, and those who are carrying one will be the safest because they can be just as smart as anyone else about “avoiding danger” yet they have an equalizer should they need it! And you won’t have one and you will die!
I have been through a “live” shooting, you have not! I think I know a little bit more about it!
I’ve been held up at gunpoint three times — once by two gunman, one armed with a shotgun. I’m sill quite alive and unscathed. Your dire, “get a gun or die” scenario is disjointed. It’s just a rationalization to remain in a place of perpetual fear that keeps your cycle of addiction going fed by your rhetoric and pathological need for a lethal weapon. There will always be guns and gunmen just as there will always be those so terrified of them that must arm against them. There will also always be lightening, but I don’t see people walking around wearing lightening rods on their heads to avoid being struck, There will always be water, but folks don’t walk around with life preservers on their backs to avoid drowning. Nor to these potential “victims” vehemently argue about their rights to not be victimized by lighting and water. You have no idea how absurd you actually sound. I’m guess that’s because you’re so addicted to your beliefs you cannot see beyond them. The true measure of you addiction would make itself apparent were you to try to go without one for a month. I’m guessing you would not last, and would put up quite a fight to keep it. Welcome to gun addiction. Something NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
The governments’ own statistics show otherwise.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
How many Waco’s will we need to have where 211 CHL holders get into an Old West shootout leaving 11 dead and many wounded before people realize that more guns is not the solution.
Source please. Where do you get this information that there was 211 CHL holders in the Waco shooting?? That’s completely false.
CHL holders are exponentially more law abiding than your fellow (non-CHL) citizens on campus. The data is available on the tx.dps website for all to see.
Beware of organizations and individuals that have to repeatedly and deliberately lie and misinform for their cause.
Max do you live under a rock. They are starting to prosecute them now.
How can you be so clueless about what you feel so strongly against? Do you even understand what a CHL is?
You sound like Alex C, who displayed his total ignorance on gun laws, and firearms in general. His ignorance was so evident that he deleted all of his previous comments. The same Alex C who is probably the leader of this UH movement.
https://thedailycougar.com/2015/10/08/oregon-shooting/
https://thedailycougar.com/2015/10/09/update-shooting-at-tsu-forces-campus-lockdown/
https://thedailycougar.com/2015/10/08/campus-carry-survey-asks-student-input/
Actually I just got back from a hunting trip. Bagged 50 pheasants. Everyone of us has cancelled our NRA membership in recent years. We all think that these idiots promoting guns, guns, guns, everywhere all the time anytime are actually putting the second amendment at risk in the long run. 330 million people, when they get sick of the nonsense being spewed by all of these gun nuts look out. They could change the 2nd in a month.
Again, source please. If you don’t have a source (because your original statement was false), please explain to me why you thought the shooters in Waco had CHL’s.
It’s probably not true. The Texas DPS report on Waco does not contain the terms “concealed”, “permit”, “license”, or “CHL”. No other reference to it out there, either.
Ah I get it, you’re a fudd that thinks guns are only for hunting and home defense. Isn’t it your bedtime, Biden?
Nice checking. Gun free UH is most definitely Alex Colvin, as he posted that he is an administrator of ‘gun free UH’ on a Cougar post. (https://thedailycougar.com/2015/10/27/guest-column-the-second-amendment-or-safety/)
Funny thing is, there is a post from him on his facebook page claiming “I’m a senior at UH and this obscene bill will directy effect the quality of life at my campus by helping to instil fear and paranoia. Fear and ignorance are the enemies of reason, not it’s companion.” (typos are his, not mine)
Funny that he is the one spreading fear and paranoia claiming that the NRA is funding us, the SCCUH, the overall SCC, and this whole movement, and portraying CHL holders as killers.
Unless it is a pack of lies, the Wikipedia entry on SCC is rather illuminating. SCC hasn’t been a “student” run organization for quite sometime. It was dumped within two months of its beginning in 2007 by a Texas student into the lap of a realtor. It’s president in 2008 quit to join the NRA and its ties to the NRA are well known. Mostly it operated by lobbying gullible and greedy legislators and by spreading falsehoods and attack ads and, when failing that, threatens lawsuits to get their way. In short, they are special interest bullies, not advocates for gun safety and could care less about direct contradictory empirical evidence which refutes their every claim. They seem indifferent to the fact that traditional NRA members have dropped away by the truckload lo these many years, themselves offended by the antagonistic and vicious tone the NRA has taken under La Pierre’s leadership with regard to the rising gun carnage and seem driven only to defend gun rights on the most absurd, outrageous, and specious of terms — never minding the overwhelming public’s outrage at the NRA’s indifference to U.S. citizens rights to life, liberty and happiness. Guns are their Almighty God and nothing, and no amount of bloodshed, not dead children, nor slaughtered students, nor suicides, nor brain-damaged senators, will curb their insatiable appetite for more and more guns. They represent part of the cause of a serious and growing public health menace. The SCC and the NRA mindset which spawned it and supports it still, could care less about reasonable gun restrictions. No restriction is acceptable, in their warped mind. They are a runaway gun train.
Nearly everything on that article needs a citation, and it’s vice president left to go to the NRA, not its president (again, citation needed).
What are their ties to the NRA other than a vice president leaving to get another job?
What are reasonable gun restrictions in your mind?
Alex deleted all of his comments to save face for his personal attacks against you, myself, and others before going public with this I assume.
Now you’re doing the same thing, senselessly belittling other people which makes it just as hard to take you seriously.
I find more often than not that people who do that are threatened by an opposing viewpoint and instead of having a constructive debate about the subject they try to downsize their opponent outside of the subject at hand with insults. If your argument is solid enough then you don’t need to belittle others.
You may think you often get the last word because someone has conceded to your argument, but I’d wager that people merely stop replying to you because you substitute logic for personal attacks which are worth no one’s time to argue with.
I may not necessarily agree with your views, but I’ll hear what anyone has to say as long as it’s constructive.
Just a little constructive criticism. Hopefully you don’t handle it as poorly as Alex did.
“CHL holders are exponentially more law abiding than your fellow (non-CHL) citizens on campus.”
There is no statistical rationale which proves this. The Texas DPS lists convictions (justice system outcomes, not crime rate or arrest rate) for CHL holders in a ridiculous side-by-side comparison with the general population. It displays tallies, not rates, for two completely different groups — different both in size and composition. Texas CHL holders have a median age of at least 54, and fewer than 10% of them are under age 30. That matters because almost all crime is committed by people under age 30.
“Convictions” also fails to capture crime for which there was no trial. Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard shooter) and Tan Do (Grand Prairie Roller Rink massacre) were two Texas CHL holders who together murdered 17 people. Their crimes alone would increase the Texas CHL homicide count by almost 60%.
Ummm, TX SB 11 adds Sec. 411.2031, “Carrying of handguns by LICENSE HOLDERS on certain campuses.”
What other “group,” besides Concealed Handgun LICENSE HOLDERS (CHL), should we be discussing??? The law is specific in who it applies to, LICENSE HOLDERS!! Discussing anything else, like age, is deception or deliberately attempting to mislead people.
TX DPS conviction data for CHL and non-CHL members is available for years up to 2013.
In 2013:
There was 708,000 persons who had a CHL.
There was ~25,740,000 persons who did not have a CHL, (non-CHL) in TX. This includes persons aged from newborn to ??? (i.e. TX population data minus CHL holders). Higher numbers, by including children and the elderly, help your argument.
There was 50,869 convictions for non-CHL holders (general public).
There was 158 convictions for persons who have a CHL.
Doing some basic math. That equates to a conviction rate of:
2 convictions per 1K non-CHL holders
.2 convictions per 1K CHL holders.
Every year, non-CHL holders (general public) are 10x more likely to be convicted of a crime than CHL holders.
If you were able to pick a roommate, would you pick someone who has a 10x less likelihood of being convicted of a felon/misdemeaner when compared to the general population?? If not, stay in school, or let that frontal portion of your brain develop a bit more before venturing out into the real world.
“The Texas DPS lists convictions (justice system outcomes, not crime rate or arrest rate) for CHL holders….”
Are we going to now include those who were charged but not found guilty??? Really?? Man, you really are reaching, or attempting to confuse people.
Again, beware of organizations and individuals that have to repeatedly and deliberately lie, DECEIVE, and misinform for their cause.
This actually suppors campus carry, 10% of CHL holders are under 30, so very very few would be on campus
Texas became a CHL state in 1995. The Waco incident took place in 1994.
It happened a few months ago.
Oh. I was thinking about the “original” Waco incident. You know, the 1994 shootout involving the ATF agents and David Koresh’s wacky clan.
I’ll bet you Obama’s presidency that the majority of those bikers were illegally in possession of their firearms
Point of fact, there were NOT 211 CHL holders in Waco to which you refer, more likely ZERO!
What is a “gun violence scientist”? You mean statistician?
No. I mean a survey of over 300 published social scientists ranging from Criminologists to Public Heath professionals — all experts in their fields and highly qualified to speak on the topic of gun violence and that 73% of whom agree that there is no empirical evidence to show a preponderance of use of guns by gun owners as a means of “self-defence.” That argument is not borne out in the published data and is bogus prima facie. That what the consensus among gun violence scientists shows. And there is absolutely nothing the NRA or their little sock puppets can say or show to refute that.
Link to our Change.org petition https://www.change.org/p/greg-abbott-texas-state-legislators-no-guns-in-our-classrooms-gun-free-uh?recruiter=206830196&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
Read the bill you are protesting. You, nor anyone else, can make UH ‘gun free’. The law says you cannot do that.
“The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.”
Read the letter. “We know that S.B. 11 is now the law and that we are legally bound to uphold it.
However University of Houston System President and Chancellor Renu Khator is
granted within the law the ability to reasonably prohibit the carrying of lethal
weapons in our classrooms, our offices, and our dormitories. We therefore call
upon our President to do so.” Maybe *you* should read the law you think you understand. Your welcome. From over 600 supporters — and counting.
I think it’s hilarious and evident of the deception when within 1 minute of your post(s), David votes it “up.”
Gun Free UH is Alex C
David is most likely also Alex C
The first post from Emily is also most likely Alex C
Good grief max you people are delusional. I am my own man. BTW I was just showing my young son my 30-30 that he will be able to use for deer hunting some day. There is a place for guns and it is not running around campus.
Alex C has shown his total and complete ignorance on gun laws, CHL’s, and firearms in general with his comments on the Daily Coog.
As such, besides your claims of “bagging pheasants,” (and similar comments elsewhere on the Daily Coog,. You must hunt every week) you also have not demonstrated factual knowledge of what you (emotionally) feel so strongly against.
So, you basically want to just ban guns from campus entirely? Because you play around with it long enough and that’s what you get, and violates the legislative intent of the law. Only residence halls and labs are meant to be up to the discretion of the school.
Ya, 600 people…All of which would pay a million dollars for a gun if a crazy gunman was coming across campus/classroom to shoot them! And you know damm well they would too 🙂
Only when people like you, addicted to guns, are allowed to roam free on college campuses, abusing your civil rights and calling it “liberty.”
Mass shooters only target areas where there are no guns! You have yet to see a mass shooter go into a school where the teachers are carrying guns and you never will! The majority of people that carry guns legally and with a permit, have the utmost respect for a gun!
Look, I was shot 7 times by my neighbor who was a retired sheriff! He had dementia. Also, my sister shot a killed my brother by a freak accident!
So, I think I have earned my opinion on guns! Common sense tells me that when you take guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only ones who will have them are the criminals! Am I wrong? NO!!!
I get it, you were raised in a family where you never had a gun, so they scare the crap out of you! But you don’t understand that those who were raised with guns, have a huge respect for owning and using a gun! Funny how the media doesn’t explode in reporting the gun attacks that have been stopped by law abiding gun owners!
If I had a young child in school right now, I would search for schools that let the teachers carry guns! Because if someone crazy comes into that school, I want someone there to be able to stop this crazy person from killing my child! It takes the police way too long to respond and by the time they do, a gunman could kill hundreds as a gun-less school is like shooting fish in a barrel! What part of that don’t you understand? Why does something like this scare you so much?
Let me also ask this….should we send our troops into war without guns? By your logic, all we have to do is tell our enemy that all guns are outlawed and that we are gonna go to war with them without guns!
I truly do not get what you are afraid of?
Your opening sentence shows how ignorant you are of criminology. A sign of a paranoia, not rationality.
Oh bs! It it’s a fact that mass shooters do not target areas where there are people carrying guns!! Examples…all of the past shootings! That’s not paranoia, that is simply a fact of life.
Another fact is that if a gunman was coming to kill you, you would be praying for a gun 🙂 haha, your lack of understanding this…well, I could care less because I will be armed!! And i could be the one that saves the life of someone who thinks the same way you do! Sheep always need a Shepard! Without one, the wolves GET THEIR DINNER!
No it is not a “fact”. There is no empirical evidence anywhere — accept as promulgated by the fraud, John Lott, who is neither a criminologist (his field of study is economics,) whose work is not accepted among peer reviewed criminology journals, and who has been the subject of more than a few long and searing critiques by actual criminologists who call his methodology into serious question — as has the National Academy of Sciences. but, by all means, keep thinking “gun free zones — an NRA myth,) is a so-called fact. Good luck with that.
Actually, prohibiting carry in all classrooms would violate the bill by “de facto”, banning campus carry as a whole. So the President actually doesnt have the authority to ban carry in all classrooms only some. Also, i think guns shouldnt be in dorms, these individuals drew the short end of the stick.
Thank you for leaving our kids defenceless to those who want to come in and shoot fish in a barrel!
I am a faculty member in the School of Art, and I signed the petition because I do not want guns in my classrooms or in my office, where I make myself available day in and day out as a member of a highly visible intellectual public, responsible for introducing students to a wide range of cultural and intellectual history that can sometimes be challenging to their personal beliefs. (This is college after all!) Guns have nothing to contribute to such an environment of learning, and we know that the very presence of a lethal weapon in a place increases the probability of violence in that place. Guns are weapons designed to kill. Calling for no guns in classrooms is not in any way a threat to one’s right to own a gun. It is simply a reasoned plea to keep guns out of spaces where they are not needed and where they do not contribute to the University’s educational mission. UH already has its own police department, which is aptly capable of handling threats where a gun on campus might be necessary.
A highly intellectual public member? Therein would lie the reason for your fear gun weapons, guns in particular; a lack of engagement in the everyday real world. The educational mission of this or any institution must always take a backseat to the Constitution and it’s guarantee of protecting our God-given rights.
Thank you for post Natilee it was well written.
You don’t get to decide the university’s mission. The university does. And neither the Constitution not Heller entitles you to abuse either and call it “liberty.”
And nothing challenges personal beliefs like an opposite point of view.
Just a case of liberals feeding on liberals like at Missouri, Yale, and other bastions of libnuts in America.
All libertarians think universities as “bastions of [dirty] socialism.” yet, they don’t seem to mind being misguided by their leaders who are the products of those same learning environments. Oh the irony is rich. As is their exploitation — which they never seem to notice.
Opa isnt’t deciding the mission statement. They are stating that it has boundaries, which are the limits set by the constitution. Hopefully GFUH won’t delete their comments this time in retrospect, as she usually does.
The constitution is not set in stone. And I would remind you that those “limits” were also articulated by Scalia in Heller v. DC, when he wrote, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Scalia, unlike gun zealots and the NRA backers, even as he defended individual rights, also recognized that schools are entitled to special considerations where guns are concerned. Heller wasn’t just some laudable manifesto on gun rights, no matter how much gun zealots try to portray it as such.
That’s how GFUH views the constitution ladies and gentlemen. “Not set in stone.” Once again, I agree with more gun control and i agree that guns should be kept out of schools of our children. However, Universities are too big to rely on the police for personal protection, just like cities. I have no affiliation with the NRA and don’t care about them. Everything I say is my own opinion developed from my own perspective. I’m not here to argue the constitutionality of campus carry. I’m here to advocate against GFUH. Your organization is malicious against law abiding citizens and veterans.
Actually, that’s how Scalia views the Constitution, whom I was quoting, and whose Heller v. DC opinion gun zealots and their allies typically take as a green light for “Constitutional Carry,” which it certainly is not, your bizarre rant notwithstanding. GFUH has many “law-abiding” citizens among its hundreds of UH students, faculty, staff, alumni, and supporting members — including veterans. Trying to character assassinate us because we oppose Tea Party and ALEC forces and their allies such as the NRA and SCC which have subverted the ordinary law-making process by advocating in favor of manufactured NRA “model legislation” upon the electorate who had no desire for them and whose considerable opposition to them are well known, is to be in league with the very tyranny which created them. ALEC the Tea Party, the NRA and the SCC are a blight upon democracy, not its friend. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed — not by the dictates of corporate autocracy. We are not America, Inc., to be subjugated by the whim of a U.S. Board of Directors.
“Trying to character assassinate us because we oppose Tea Party…”
No, I am against GFUH because you tell people who have a different opinion to go” pour peroxide in your eyes” and you tried to diminish a Marine on another one of your posts. I think your position can be better represented by people who don’t hurl insults and talk down about the service.
The law is here, your advocating to undermine it by preventing carry in all classrooms and effectively the campus.
“your bizarre rant notwithstanding”
You are the queen of rants, always going off on the NRA instead of addressing my arguments.
No law is beyond the reach of principled dissent or the repeal process. It is an unjust, manufactured law, as are its kin emerging along the same assembly line running through numerous other statehouses — all insults to the very process of democratic and representative lawmaking, and all born in a toxic cauldron of corporate profit interest, not of liberty. You have no “argument” worth addressing.
There’s GFUH stance on communicating ladies and gentleman. “You have no “argument” worth addressing.”
Argument: Universities are too big to be protected by just police. When
That’s GFUH stance on communication everyone. “You have no “argument” worth addressing.”
Argument: Universities are too big to rely on police to protect us as every annual crime report and campus mass shooting indicates. Houston is also too big to rely on police, which is why conceal carry is practical.
Now, I hope a sensible response is rendered by GFUH. However, it will most likely be a rant about gun zealots and the NRA, and how I’m somehow associated with them.
My stance on communication is that you are subtly defending an indefeasible usurpation of governance by the people. Every one of the 18 co-authors of S.B. 11 were either paid by or affiliated with the NRA. Three of them were large beneficiaries of ALEC, two were committee member — one of whom received over $100,000 dollars, others, tens of thousands. The SCC has fervently defended this corruption as “gun rights” for their so-called law-abiding members. The SCC receives “activist” training from The Leadership Institute and helps sponsor libertarian Students for Liberty conferences, ( one this month in February in D.C.,) which are hugely funded by the Koch Brothers. Moreover, S.B. 11 was a piece of “model legislation” first introduced by Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell in 2015 as the “Campus Personal Protection Act” — the exact same name it was given by the NRA and adopted by ALEC in 2008. It was reconstituted with a different name then passed last summer by Abbott — another huge recipient of NRA largess. To defend this kind of obscene political corruption or its supporters — whoever they may be — for any reason is to be complicit in its implication: a tyranny by the minority. This is all well documented. We’ve done the research. Ergo, you have no argument in its defense on any grounds as it has nothing whatsoever to do with a law asked for by the people it most negatively impacts : we the students and the UH and the Texas collegiate community.
What we should be arguing about is the practicality of the law. I don’t defend the corrupt people in the Gov’t. I defend the practicality of the law. If these people collaborated to pass a law that you liked, you wouldn’t be preaching about how corrupt they are. I believe money needs to be taken out of politics. The whole purpose of debating this law at UH is to determine the practicality of policies that will accommodate it. You’re just hurt that the system didn’t pass a law that you liked.
There is no practicality where usurpation of the democratic process of governance is afoot. We might as well be debating the “practicality” of burning witches at the stake. Some laws are unjust by their nature and are not debate-worthy. They are repugnant to any decent concept of liberty.
“Some laws are unjust by their nature and are not debate-worthy”
Right, when someone’s opinion is different than yours, their argument should not be considered. This is the fundamental problem with modern feminism and SJWs now days.
In your view, every law that ever gets passed must have been passed by undermining democracy, so what the point of a GFUH organization? Why not just form an organization dedicated to reforming Gov’t? Seems your wasting your time with this GFUH stance.
I am hardly alone in my opinion. It’s the opinion of tens of thousands among the collegiate community. Your ignorance is breathtaking and advocating for injustice against institutes and their allies which number millions hardly makes yours a worthwhile opinion. In my view, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed — not by usurpation of the electorates’ right to the democratic process of governance by imposing pre-fabricated laws which serve only their cronies’ ends who were in pay of those who crafted them.
I believe this law is just, as do many other. Your still not arguing why this law is bad for college campuses. Your attacking the people that made the law just like your attacking me instead of my argument. Can you argue why this law is bad for college campuses without talking about the NRA, ALEC, koch bros, etc? Please, just argue about the concept for once.
There is, again, no “justice” when a law is imposed upon a people whom had no say in its creation and who, when imposed upon them, reject it wholeheartedly, and whose representatives care not a whit for their dissent and who, moreover give assent only to an extremist minority. You seem to have a difficult time understanding the idea of genuine injustice when it comes to lawmaking and the idea that legislatures have a moral duty to represent constituents wholly not partially, nor sell their vote to the highest bidder. This law is a pre-fabrication. You can call it “just” all you please, and argue fair ends rather than perverted means all night, but it was not born from the minds of lawmakers as servants of the people; it was born in a corporate boardroom in the toxic cauldron of those far removed from the statehouse. If you prefer your laws dictated to you with nary a vote from you while usurping your rights and dignity as a citizen, so be it. We’ll have to disagree on what participatory governance, and representative democracy means. And we’ll have to end it here, as well. Peace.
Wish we could have debated points of the issue instead of the source. There were a lot of pro-carry people in the forums at UH btw, including me.
The ratio of speakers for and against guns on campus at the 2nd forum was over 40:17, a review of the video reveals. We have the videos from both forums. The majority opinion was overwhelmingly against it also at the first. And those speaking in favor of it were using SCC rhetoric and their usual monolithic talking points — much of it borrowed from data used by discredited social scientist John Lott (who’s not even a criminologist, he’s an economist, who can’t even get his data published in peer reviewed criminology literature — gee, wonder why?) that they have been repeating ad nauseum for years. The same buzz words get used; the same tired, hackneyed scenerios and examples. And the “gun free zone” catch-phrase is only used by the NRA, and SCC and their sympathizers, never by actual criminologists or social scientists who study gun violence. It’s only used by armatures and pseudo-intellectuals in their baseless bumper-sticker logic arguments who fancy themselves lawyers, criminologists, with all manner of expertise on gun violence with not a singe criminologist among them. No one is buying it.
Well the law is here, the source doesn’t matter right now. The debate is where you can carry on campus. Most of your supporters were probably 20 year old kids who live on campus and some faculty. I love how you slander SCC. Btw your facebook page has 36 likes compared to the 216 for SCC. Can you give me one counterpoint against the practicality of campus carry? Please, just one, I’ve been trying to get one out of you for weeks. I know, the NRA is evil, you didn’t want this law and you don’t like how it was passed. Just tell me why this is this a bad law?
There is no debate. It is an unjust law. It will be repealed. Live with it. One counterpoint is: it’s unjust. Please consult a dictionary for a definition since you seem to not grasp what “unjust “means, no matter how many times I say it. In this case, no college in this state petitioned for this law; we did not lobby legislators for it; quite the opposite; we repudiate it and everything that caused it to be born, and yet no matter how we have petitioned our government for redress, we have been summarily ignored. THAT is the heart of the injustice. Who’s law is this? Not ours, and not those who repudiate it. It belongs to those who would force it upon us. That is injustice. THAT is what makes it a bad law. Worse, we are now forced to craft policies to accommodate a law now forced upon us for those who need not even be accountable with lethal weapons, and for whom no one will know if they are even licensed or mentally stable enough to possess one. This is not justice; this is subversion and tyranny of the minority; this is legislative bullying against the electorate.
This is MY law and thousands of others’ law. Some people think obamacare is unjust, but we still listen to both sides of the argument. Actually it wont be repealed anytime soon. Ill be done at UH by the time it is, if ever. Take comfort in knowing that everytime i carry my glock 26 on campus, i will be thinking of you, squirming around in your safe place 🙂
Congress has done everything it can as has Abbott to stonewall Obamacare, let’s not kid ourselves about how everybody tries to get along with Obamacare. And thanks for the standard retort; I expect no less than 7th-grade rebuttals. They usually go with the mentality that is so self-absorbed it thinks only of its own needs and never, ever, of how his actions may impact others. The pro-gun crowd is a narcissistic me-me one. My rights! Are all we here. Here’s a tip: rights come with duties; most importantly the duty to exercise them with care so as not to endanger others. — that’s how real laws work. They are built on compromise; on a shared sense of mutual consideration. On a social compact of agreement. That is how people learn to get along. Go in peace and stick that in your holster, if there’s any room left over from your ego there.
I love these insults, it tickles me pink, please keep them coming, im not thin skinned like the SJWs.
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
I guess in this case your view is the majority and mine is the minority.
Ok. In this case, I guess ALEC is the minority we should be protecting. Yes, that makes sense. We’ll have a CEO of the U.S. instead of an elected President and just let U.S.A., Inc. and its corporate cabal dictate our laws and do away with the electoral process all together, since your faith in their good decision-making abilities is so in evidence. One small problem: private enterprise is subject to far less transparency and scrutiny than is government,(try using an FOIA request on Ford and see what happens,) so do have fun trying to redress ALEC members when they pass model legislation you DON’T agree with. You will be SOL. The best you can hope for is they toss you a bone with some minor policy change ( after protests, and maybe some media scrutiny, if they’re even so inclined — or allowed — to look at the issue) or pay lip service in some press event. But remember: companies are not democratic entities by charter; they are all little dictatorships. Otherwise, workers would get to vote for raises, management styles, logos, company polices, etc. Yes, let’s just dump democracy in favor or corporatocracy and see how that works out. Brilliant.
Theres a lot of people that wanted this law. You cant even give me a reason why its a bad law. Just pretend it was passed in a perfect govt, and then answer the question. Laws are here for protection and practicality. It is practical to require someone to register their vehicle, it is practical to allow campus carry. I ask: why isnt campus carry practical in your opinion?
I’ve given you several. Not sure if you have a problem processing information or not. Asked and answered. I’m guessing since you didn’t like the answer you got, you thought asking the question ad nausium would get a different one. Let me repeat for you, my original contention. It’s an unjust law. That makes it a bad law inherently by design. An impractical one in its logistic application and a repugnant one in its moral implication Why? Let me repeat:
No college in this state petitioned for this law; we did not lobby legislators for it; quite the opposite; we repudiated it and everything that caused it to be born, and yet no matter how we have petitioned our government for redress, we have been summarily ignored. THAT is the heart of the injustice. Who is this law for? Not for the vast majority who are now forced to comply with it. Who does that leave? A small, vocal minority who’s only interest is advancing their own aims; not community interest, certainly not those who repudiate it. It belongs to those who would force it upon us. That is injustice. THAT is what makes it a bad law. Worse, UH is now forced to craft policies to accommodate a law now forced upon us for the benefit of the few who need not even be accountable (thanks to the details therein of said law,) for their lethal weapons, and for whom no one will know if they are even licensed or mentally stable enough to possess one. ( no registries allowed, no questions permitted — except by campus police. Cold comfort to a student or instructor,) Would you trust a doctor with only four hours training to give you a diagnosis? No. But you expect a person with only four hours training with a lethal weapon to handle it responsibly in a crisis? It’s absurd. The rights of the few — with no guarantee of skill or proficiency with their weapon — now reign over the many. This is beyond impracticable; this is subversion and tyranny by the minority; this is the result of legislative bullying against the electorate, bought and paid for by corporate forces we did not petition to intervene. It is a complete shredding of the social contract betwixt the state and the governed. The supreme hypocrisy, of course, lay in the fact that Abbott has himself sued the federal government more than a dozen times for what he claims is “government overreach” but yet has no compunction about signing into law a bit of perverted legislation that does exactly that to his own state constituents who overwhelmingly reject it.
I’m not sure what part of the preceding doesn’t answer your “what’s bad” about the law question since this is the 2nd time I’ve elaborated on it, but if not, you’ll have to find it. in what I wrote, if it’s still not clear. Beyond drawing you a picture with crayons, I have exhausted my ability to demonstrate as clearly as I can why this is an unconscionable decree, and unfunded mandate, not a piece of judicious lawmaking.
Finally, at least one part of your rant had an arguement why the law is bad. I agree that logistically the law may cost more than it needs to , i.e. armories on campus, which i why im against guns in dorms. I like to debate ideas not people. Untrained? Compared to police we are not that far off. The police are grossely undertrained btw. Vets have recieved more training than cops when it comes to CQC. Here is how you debate ideas:
Me: “why is the campus carry law bad for the community?”
You: “because the NRA paid the govt to pass it!” ”
Me:”well what about the idea of the law?”
You: “the college didnt want this law!”
In order to repeal a decision you have to argue why that decision is bad for the community. GFUH is better off without you. Your a poison to their message.
Nice try. No little gun keychain for you.
I dont care about your feelings. Your the only one spreading fear. We are not afraid. You should resign, i dont think the people who support GFUH advocate people to “pour peroxide in their eyes”
As to comparing the registration of vehicles with guns, while one is required by law, the other is not. Ergo the practicalities are incomparable. How long has the NRA and their minions fought the very notion of a registry? And how many times have howls of protest gone up when the mere mention of tightening restrictions comes up? No, the ultimate end game is No questions asked “Constitutional Carry.” That much is clear judging from the pattern. Campus Carry is just another bite of the apple. Its the death of justice by a thousand cuts, not by a tidal wave. However; this also serves as a warning: if they can do it with guns, imagine what else they can wrap in the banner of “liberty” and call it freedom, while robbing the people of representation? As I pointed out sometime ago, the gun proliferation are the symptom; the result, not the cause. That cause ought to worry you.
Theres more guns than people in this country, i gurantee you more people want this bill than people who dont.
UH mandates that women cant give consent if they had a beer. I gurantee the majority of students believe this to be rediculous and didnt lobby for it. But they argue why it is redicuolous, not how undermining the administration is. This silly mandate was forced upon us.
UH is not a civil government. Those are policies, not laws. That’s a really shiity comparison.I can walk away from UH; can’t exactly walk away from a state where a person lives and works and has ties without enormous upset.. Besides: denial of beer vs the subjugation of democracy? Comparable? Really? There are more grains of sand than people. You really think this is some kind of numbers game? You are mistaken about who does and does not. 5 people shouting in a room around 300 who are not, does not make them a majority. It just makes them the loud and obnoxious minority. Besides, SCC has sued several universities to change it’s gun-related “policies” because they can’t handle rejection like adults.
I guess your the adult then, telling people to “pour peroxide in your eyes.” Im making a comparison to how people react when a rule is forced on you. It obvious that universities are overwhelmingly liberal. Maybe a public university isnt the place for you. UH is public and the public wanted this law, your UH senate doesnt hold sway on public law.
…”of how his actions may impact others.”
This is precisely what im trying to get you to talk about, the practicality of the law and how it will impact UH. Instead ive hit a wall of subpar insults.
It’s funny, there are 600 supporters in GFUH which is about how many people will be carrying on campus.
Your numbers are way off. We have tens of thousands of supporters; over 200 on our FB group alone, and several hundreds on other venues, and tens of thousands with whom we are allied with across Texas and the nation.
I’m not off, the chief of police put estimates in the seven hundred range for the number of people who will most likely carry.
“the letter is signed by 150 students, faculty, staff, alumni and parents. An additional 600 supporters have already signed a Change.org petition denouncing S.B. 11, the bill that allows for campus carry on college campuses.”
Simple math here. 750 is in the vicinity of the “seven hundred” range. Campus carry has national supporters too, nobody cares.
The letter was released in November — almost 6 months ago, at the time, our Change.org petition was nearing the 700 mark. We have grown, as has our network, considerably since. I hope you are aware that campaigns are not static things that remain frozen in place. Campus Carry is only supported by gun extremists and libertarian front groups such as the SCC. It is NOT supported by the mainstream, nor by thousands of responsible gun owners who have come out squarely against it and subversive legislation like it. You are in some form of pathological denial if you belive otherwise, or hope that by denigrating what we do with your fuzzy math, your argument is somehow advanced. It is not.
Point taken. So i guess im a gun nut then. I own 1 firearm that i conceal carry and im a gun nut. I dont see the SCC telling people to ‘go pour peroxide in their eyes’, which you have done. Seems like your the nut. Lets imagine that this law was passed without corruption, now, why is it a bad law?
“UH already has its own police department, which is aptly capable of handling threats where a gun on campus might be necessary.”
Name one instance, where a campus cop prevented a classroom shooting before it happened.
How does banning guns protect you? Are there metal detectors at your doors? Are there security guards to stop someone? People don’t just shoot professors because they have guns. People don’t just shoot random people, simply because they are carrying at the time. Most situations are between family members anyways….but let’s for a second pretend that someone who had a CHL wanted to harm you…how does banning guns stop that person from shooting you? They want to shoot you…you think a sign is going to stop someone who is already at the point of wanting to shoot you? Or are you so delusional you believe students who disagree will just pop up in class and shoot you? How ridiculous are you?
And this guy isn’t very intelligent. He recently wrote an op ed in regards to the NRA/ALEC contributions to Texas legislators and couldn’t even get half of their titles correct. Not to mention the grammatical errors. His grand proof are things like $500 contributions to campaigns, even a mention of $4,500 in contributions since 2004….lol, seriously? That’s your proof of collaboration? Not to mention…if you want a bill passed, who do you go to? Someone who opposes your ideas? NO, you go to someone like minded…common friggin since. Alex Colvin isn’t a very intelligent person. There’s a reason why UH is kind of a joke institution outside of a few programs. As a Houstonian, this guy is a disgrace.