College gun control advocate needs a lesson in history

(AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

I get that there will never be 100 percent of the population opposed to ideas like gun control. It would be nice, but since we have people openly advocating for Communism despite that trainwreck of an ideology led to throughout the 20th Century, it’s safe to say gun control will always be with us.

However, a lot of people who advocate for gun control keep making the same arguments, none of which are based on, well, anything except a superficial “understanding” of what’s going on.

Take this piece by a college campus gun control advocate.

When committing to UT Austin this fall, I first found it hard to believe that students could freely carry firearms at any public college without factoring in the varying crime rates. After extensive research and talks with activists, I felt compelled to do what I can to reform campus carry (permitting concealed carry on public campuses | Texas Government Code, Sec. 411.2031). My goal is not to abolish the law , but give the power from the state government to the colleges individually. To effectuate my goal I’ve created a nonprofit organization called Students for Campus Carry Choice to advocate for optional campus carry so that each college has the ability to decide whether guns should be allowed or not.

Last month, I traveled to Oregon to attend a speaker session of David Hogg. As the founder of a gun control movement called “March for Our Lives” and a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, he told the story of how he grew up in a family that often used guns and how he continues to practice shooting guns in ranges to this day. Throughout the conference I wondered how his gun use and gun control movement align together.

Spoiler: It doesn’t. He’s just trying to leverage himself as a shooter so we’re less likely to think he favors gun bans.

That’s it.

Moving on…

I fully realized I may easily be attacked for saying that guns are a privilege because of the second amendment. However, the 2nd amendment only states that a “well regulated militia” could “keep and bear arms.” The shooter of David’s high school fails to have shown to be “well regulated” when, as I said before, he had regularly made school threats and held racist, xenophobic attitudes. Watching debates between NRA members and David’s fellow student survivors, I have seen that many NRA members agree that not everyone should have the right to own guns, especially with the U.S. lacking cohesive gun control measures to stop the many shooters who get guns legally.

UT-Austin needs to give this kid his money back. All of it.

The “well regulated militia” simply meant a properly functioning one, and the Founding Fathers believed that was the totality of the (admittedly male) population. People aren’t well regulated because a free nation doesn’t regulate people in any way, even to make sure they’re properly functioning.

You can’t.

Now, the author is part of a group pushing to allow colleges to decide for themselves whether or not to allow campus carry. He frames this as a “choice,” but it’s really just a way to try and allow colleges to implement gun control on their own.

I’d say that he never heard of the Second Amendment because, well, he seems to think that rights should be restricted on college campuses, which are public property.

Unfortunately, I know that he has because he’s quoted part of it.

In the process, though, he betrays just why this campus “choice” effort should be a non-starter. It’s because few if any public universities would actually respect students’ rights to keep and bear arms. They would instead almost universally become gun-free zones, without any regard to crime rate or anything else.

The author of this piece is just too far up his own posterior to see that.

Or, he knows good and well what will happen, but figures that the word “choice” sounds so much better than “ban.”

Clearly, his education, such as it is, is lacking. Especially since he’s trying tired, long-debunked claims regarding the Second Amendment itself.

It’s kind of sad, really. Especially since the taxpayers support UT-Austin.