Austin, TX — On June 1, 2015, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed S.B. 11, also known as the “campus carry” law. S.B. 11 provides that license holders may carry a concealed handgun throughout university campuses, starting Aug. 1, 2016.
By: Matt Agorist
This article first appeared at FreeThoughtProject
In a letter to the students, faculty, and staff of the University of Texas at Austin, President Greg Fenves announced on Wednesday that the college will allow handguns in classrooms.
This law is not only for the faculty, but also allows students to openly carry a pistol in classroom, dorms, dining areas, study areas, and in the Unversity apartments.
In his letter, Fenves voiced his discontent with allowing handguns and noted that he was only allowing them to comply with the campus carry law.
“I do not believe handguns belong on a university campus, so this decision has been the greatest challenge of my presidency to date. I empathize with the many faculty, staff, students and parents of students who signed petitions, sent emails and letters, and organized to ban guns from campus and especially classrooms. As a professor, I understand the deep concerns raised by so many. However, as president, I have an obligation to uphold the law.”
The law is receiving mixed reviews from faculty. Last month, professors held a Teach-in to voice their opposition to allowing guns in the classroom.
According to the law, only licensed handgun owners will be able to bring their guns as long as it remains on their person at all times, or locked in their vehicle.
A UT panel released their recommendations for policies to be put in place for handguns on campus. Specifically they say guns should be banned from dorms, offices, labs and child care facilities. However, the panel also said UT’s more than 50,000 students spend most of their time on campus in the classroom, therefore they believe by keeping handguns out of the classroom they are violating the campus carry law, reports KATN.
As fears of rampant shootings on Texas campuses are sparked across the nation with the passage of this law, statistics show that they are unfounded. In reality, the campus will most likely stay exactly the same. Learning will go on as normal, only now, people will be protecting themselves and others.
Every time there is a shooting, controversy arises as the anti-gun groups call for “stricter gun laws” while the pro-gun groups cite Charlton Heston.
Gun rights advocates state the obvious when they say that restricting the possession of guns only keeps guns out of the hands of people who actually listen to the law.
On the other side, the gun controllers ignore this logic and push for even stricter laws across the nation to stop the flow of guns.
Unfortunately, taking away the ability of people to defend themselves is a popular notion in this country despite the logic behind disarming everyone to stop criminals being incredibly flawed.
Of course, a society without guns sounds fantastic and in a perfect utopian world, it would be nice not to need a gun. However, we do not live in utopia.
It’s not about “clinging to the second amendment” or being addicted to firepower, it’s about protecting you and your family and no one having the right to hinder that protection.
As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Those who would attempt to stop you from defending yourself, are attacking the very right from which all other rights are derived – protection of one’s own life.
What advocates of gun control really mean when they say they want to ban guns is that they only want the government to have guns. After all, who would enforce the ban on guns, and how would it be enforced — without guns?
Ironically enough, there are many people within the police accountability movement who advocate the disarming of society. Somehow, they think that police will magically begin to act in a moral manner and respond quicker to 9-1-1 calls once the rest of society can no longer protect themselves with guns.
Calling the police for protection is nowhere near effective, not too mention that there is a good chance your house will be wrecked, your pet killed, or worse.
Not only is it a crap shoot to call 9-1-1, but it’s a terribly rigged craps game in which the house almost always wins – and you lose.
Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”
Trying to claim that the police will step up to protect you once all the good people turned in their guns is a pipe dream devoid of any logical thought whatsoever.
Even the cops know this.
As the Free Thought Project pointed out, Police chiefs across the country are urging citizens to arm themselves and admitting that police cannot stop mass shootings, only a well-armed society can.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world.
This article first appeared at FreeThoughtProject