Is It Time For Greater Gun Liberty On Campus?

In a weaker moment I read an article in today's The Chronicle of Higher Education about gun rights on college campuses.

Here's the graff in question:

in response to tragedies like the massacre at Virginia Tech and fatal shootings at other institutions, many state legislatures have introduced, and at least one has passed, laws to allow people to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. But such laws would not, as their proponents suggest, help students and staff members shoot active killers, administrators said during a panel here on Monday. Instead, the laws would have a slew of scary consequences, they said, creating campus environments not unlike the Wild West.

To address this critique ask yourself several questions: Why do gun control advocates always say that the country will descend into some kind of "Wild West" when we vote against their policies? Why are they always wrong? With shooting rampages occurring like clock work on America's campuses, might it be time to stop being sheep?

God forbid a shooting were ever to occur on this campus. We know from past posts that Pomona, not Claremont McKenna, is one of the nation's most dangerous schools. And we hope to keep it that way, though a knifing or so might retard our progress.

I used to think at my old private high school that the phrase "it could never happen here," protected me from the likelihood of being shot on campus. I didn't know my school's history.

Several years before I arrived two outsiders arrived to attend one of our dances -- sound familiar yet? One of them proceeded to open fire on the other. Though fortunately no one was killed, one student went to the emergency room with a bullet lodged in his butt. The school canceled all inter-school dances indefinitely.

The Claremont McKenna administration seems to consider a firearm on campus tantamount to endangering all of us. Just look at The Basic Rule of Conduct.

1. Actions which cause the personal injury or death of another, or which threaten or endanger the personal safety or well-being of others. Such actions include, but are not limited to

e. Possessing or storing on campus firearms or ammunition.

Will someone please explain to me how storing ammunition endangers?

*********************************************************************************

There once was a time when Claremont McKenna's student body boasted some of the fittest and finest the nation had. They were soldiers, thanks to the the G.I. bill, who knew their way around a rifle. Today we are targets for outsiders whose respect for property and persons extend only as far as their ability to take advantage of us.

I suppose we should be happy that at the very least the Claremont R.O.T.C. chapter runs a course entitled "Riflery and Orienteering." Your faithful correspondent tried entering, but with no success.

There were just too many students in the class.

A Difference of Opinion With The Claremont Institute on Iran

I love the Claremont Institute. I am not ashamed to admit it.

I think that they extend the light of freedom by preserving the principles of the American Founding. Their vision of an accountable government that "respects private property, promotes stable family life, and maintains a strong defense" is my vision. It goes without saying that I consider myself a "Claremont Conservative."

And yet, I am troubled by an article I read in today's Detroit Free Press about the Claremont Institute.

Here's the paragraph in question (emphasis added)

Claremont [Institute] would like to see the United States embark on developing a $15-billion missile defense system and discourage U.S. citizens and institutions from investing in Iran or corporations that do business in Iran.

I have no disagreement with the national missile defense system. I think a better location for it would be in Azerbaijan, as the Russians suggest, and not, Eastern Europe, as the Americans want, but that's a matter for policy experts to ponder.

I do not believe, as St. Barack, does, that we ought to sit down with the governments of our enemies and bomb our allies.

But just because I would not sit down with the Hitlers of the world does not mean I would not trade with the Germans, languishing as they were for the socialist economic policies of the Third Reich. The Germans, we must remember, thought Hitler was an emissary of "hope."

And so it is with Iran.

Yes, a regime change needs to occur in Iran. But sanctions are the wrong way to achieve that end. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that sanctions never achieve the ends they set out to accomplish. Witness Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, and Cuba (though its chains may be loosening.) Do you really think that those countries' elites have missed a single meal? Do we really believe that the homophobic, anti-Semitic, hateful Iranian regime is upset when we refuse to trade our ideas or goods in their markets?

We need more companies to invest in Iran because those companies can bring a taste for the amenities and dignities of capitalism. A great man once said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That great man was aided by some of the very people who work and have worked for the Claremont Institute. Why they, of all people would want to establish the economic versions of those walls is something I fail to grasp. If history is any indication, the reason the Soviet Empire fell was due to the message of freedom we, through the Voice of America, broadcast into contraband radios. I firmly believe that that message is intended for every human heart.

An economic downturn in Iran would mean that millions would try to leave, which, would in turn, damage the families by tearing them apart, give the state more control over those who stay behind, and could potentially inflame the region. In short, it's against the aims of the Claremont Institute.