 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
University gun debate another culture war battleground
March 26, 2008
|
The
debate over allowing those with
concealed weapons permits to
carry those weapons on public
college campuses is a much
broader and deeper conflict than
it appears. Most of the
participants are barely
cognizant of their roles in that
conflict, and that Arizona’s
university system is again
another battleground in the
culture wars.
Most American universities have become advance outposts for the post-modern leftist dogmas dominating western Europe since, and partly in reaction to, the Second World War. The doctrines of internationalism, secularism, collectivism and pacifism have been adopted by most EU nations and are slowly being imposed on the rest. They have even infected most of the supposed conservative political parties there and are generally accepted throughout much of Western Europe and have permeated most American universities. The arguments against allowing this simple form of self-defense are not really about safety. That’s the cover story and can be easily refuted. The proposal is not about arming children, although we used to and thought little of it both on and off college campuses. One must be 21 to hold a concealed weapons permit and meet other requirements. None of the thousands of Arizonans who have carried their weapons this way for years have shot up anything or anyone anywhere, nor have those in other states. On occasions they have, by simply possessing their weapons, stopped or discouraged crimes. On many more occasions they have deterred criminals by the mere possibility that their weapons were available. Those opposing extending the ability to carry those weapons are mainly the same people who claimed dire consequences about allowing permits in the first place. They were wrong then and wrong now. Some, influenced by pacifism, think college campuses are somehow special places, sanctuaries of the intellect that shouldn’t allow instruments of violence. Tell it to the thugs and rapists who see those dark parking lots and large apartment buildings as something else, as places with target-rich environments of often well-off victims disarmed by those charged with their protection. And note the intellectual proximity to those who wish to deny access to military recruiters and banish ROTC from those same campuses. Two symbolic events occurring in the last few years tell us much about the dominant philosophy present in our university system. Wilbur used to pack. Even a phony gun was too much for the hoplophobes* in charge and was removed, accomplishing a pacifist victory in graphics. The Kit Carson Rifle, something we played New Mexico over since 1920, was also dumped with the reason given that it was a con job by Pop McCale and wasn’t really Kit’s. Think they would’ve cared had it been the Kit Carson shovel? Note that the infection is equally present in New Mexico. Most of those engaging in this campus gun debate should back up and analyze their position relative to other beliefs. We are a nation founded on the concept of individual rights and our history is based on their expansion to more people. Self-defense, now illegal in some countries including the UK, is a fundamental human right belonging to all individuals. Collectivism sees rights as belonging only to groups and issued to them by governments. Pacifism believes no right to self-defense exists, period. Where you ultimately come down depends on which of these value systems you accept. One can be a collectivist but not a pacifist or vice-versa, but the combination is far more common than not. The argument is simply for or against the individual right of self-defense after the red herrings are all put aside. Please note how the opponents use the standard leftist ploy of closing the debate and discarding opposition arguments prematurely often before they are even made. Which proves how insecure their beliefs actually are and how shallow and shaky their adopted Eurovalues system really is. *1. hoplophobia n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek “hoplites,” weapon). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, more, at mere thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Often helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization” often useful in treating many phobias. Also: Hoplophobe, hoplophobic. “The person had hoplophobia and passed out at the mere sight of a gun.”
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
