TexasCHLforum.com

I've been thinking about it a lot lately with the Campus Carry debacle in the Texas Legislature this year.
I've watched the debates, and read the comments on here. And I think we're going about it all wrong.
We're letting them phrase the questions in a manner that makes it sound as if our rights weren't being infringed upon already.
We're engaging in debates about why we should be allowed to have a gun on campus. And we fall for it.
If someone wanted to discuss our home life and asked us "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" would we argue that we had?

Our right to keep and bear arms was so important to the framers of the consitution that it was listed in the bill of rights.
Some of the other rights granted were the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.
This same document gives us protection from unreasonable search and seizure, double jeapardy, self incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment.

How many of these anti-gun folks would stand by if their right to free speech or their right to a fair trial were denied them?

Edit: Fixed a typo on the word debacle...

I agree with you, but their right to free speech isn't being denied because their speech aligns wih most other academia nuts.

So how do we restructure the debate in terms aligned more to what's happening? We're letting them control the PR war.

That's what we're trying to figure out.

clarionite wrote:So how do we restructure the debate in terms aligned more to what's happening? We're letting them control the PR war.

And it isn't just over campus carry. The public institutions in Texas do not disclose their finances - and they need to do that. I still believe that some of the campus carry backlash was generated by the administrations not wanting the legislature to tell them what they can and cannot do. They each run their own little fiefdom and control their serfs tightly. And they can and do control the PR within their fiefdom very tightly.

chasfm11 wrote:

clarionite wrote:So how do we restructure the debate in terms aligned more to what's happening? We're letting them control the PR war.

And it isn't just over campus carry. The public institutions in Texas do not disclose their finances - and they need to do that. I still believe that some of the campus carry backlash was generated by the administrations not wanting the legislature to tell them what they can and cannot do. They each run their own little fiefdom and control their serfs tightly. And they can and do control the PR within their fiefdom very tightly.

Somewhere along the way, they forgot that they are under the same laws as the rest of us. Somewhere, they started turning left and have been drifting towards port ever since.

Fiefdoms and serfs are very accurate. I have said before that this is the most sacred bastion of "progressivism" the left has to them. When speech which goes against what they stand for, or we stand up for our rights to keep and bear arms, or any of these rights guaranteed to us threaten their little sanctuary, they cry foul, and do whatever they need to to keep us at arm's length.

The thing is, the louder they shout, the weaker they get. We have shown over the last 4 years that we are driving a wedge in their fiefdom. After Virginia Tech, SCCC was formed, and they helped with the need for this. They (the colleges) cried in 2009, and we drove placed the wedge at the edge, and pushed. They cried louder this time, and we drove that wedge in deeper.What we accomplished that time, and this time, we need to build on.

We get in there with the PR ourselves. There are those on this board who have contributed some great ideas. We just need to organize them and get them out quickly. Education is the key.

(I love using analogies) We have the kid sitting at the table with the spinach still on his plate. He hates the thought of eating it. He's afraid he'll hate it, but deep down inside he's more afraid of his liking it. That would shatter everything he's known told himself about spinach. However, he knows that he has to eat it before he can go play ball. All we can do is tell him how good it tastes, and how good it is for him. And wait for him to finish it.

And I know a lot of "grownups" that still won't eat their spinach, despite what Popeye told us.

Jasonw560 wrote:I agree with you, but their right to free speech isn't being denied because their speech aligns with most other academia nuts.

My mouth dropped when I read of an on campus "Designated Free Speech Zone; open 8 a.m.-6:p.m." or something like that.

RPB wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:I agree with you, but their right to free speech isn't being denied because their speech aligns with most other academia nuts.

My mouth dropped when I read of an on campus "Designated Free Speech Zone; open 8 a.m.-6:p.m." or something like that.

I'm sure there are those on campus that are thankful the school is so generous with the time alloted.

clarionite wrote:I've been thinking about it a lot lately with the Campus Carry debacle in the Texas Legislature this year.
I've watched the debates, and read the comments on here. And I think we're going about it all wrong.
We're letting them phrase the questions in a manner that makes it sound as if our rights weren't being infringed upon already.
We're engaging in debates about why we should be allowed to have a gun on campus. And we fall for it.
If someone wanted to discuss our home life and asked us "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" would we argue that we had?

Our right to keep and bear arms was so important to the framers of the consitution that it was listed in the bill of rights.
Some of the other rights granted were the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.
This same document gives us protection from unreasonable search and seizure, double jeapardy, self incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment.

How many of these anti-gun folks would stand by if their right to free speech or their right to a fair trial were denied them?

Edit: Fixed a typo on the word debacle...

I had a similar discussion on Saturday with some college students at my house. the 2nd ammendment seems (to me anyway) the only ammendment that the anti's want to not just ignore, but remove from the founding documents.

my $0.02