SGA Senate meeting, Feb. 2

Once more, I did not write this. It's cute though that whoever did thinks this is what I believe.

@William You wrote a very rational response so I don't really have a problem with your post. My only beef is with people who insult the writers and the paper whenever an opinion they disagree with (usually a liberal one) is expressed. It kind of makes our university look bad.

Gun rights are one of the most contested topics when it comes to politics. Both sides throw a ridiculous amount of money at lobbying it. It is true that the times have changed since the second amendment was written; however, countless supreme court justices have seen fit to maintain the amendment through multiple cases.

Now to the article. "Someone" brings up a very rational argument. Criminals are criminals, law abiding citizens are law abiding citizens. Concealed carry holders go through safety courses, background checks, and varying levels of proficiency tests through legal means for the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals stick it in their holster/pocket/waistband and go. They are law breakers. Therefore, if you try and either create a law which limits law abiding citizens, or suspend a law which grants law abiding citizens additional rights, you only serve to inhibit the law abiding citizen. At this point the only people carrying firearms are the criminals. You could argue that we just ban firearms but you'll find that to be none too successful. I could mention the whole "an armed society is a polite society" schtick but that is far too overused in this context.

In a perfect world we would all walk through the streets waving at each other and everything would be roses. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. There are people who mean to do you bodily harm because they think they deserve what you have, or whatever else goes through their mind; I don't claim to be a criminal psychologist so I honestly have no clue what goes through the mind of a criminal.

I have personally witnessed someone get shot within a half mile of campus. I have also been "interviewed" at least once to my knowledge. The fact that it even got to that point was an error on my part and luckily I 'failed' the interview. If you have no clue what I am talking about you should research criminal interviews and situational awareness.

Look at the tangent I have gotten myself into. Anyways, hopefully an individual against firearms will put forth some rational arguments rather than claim I am a gun nut or conspiracy theorist so we can get a dialogue going.