Entertainment | April 18, 2009 | Comment on this video (18)

Guns on Campus - UT Walkout

Austin_Doc_Collab
The current 2009 Texas Legislature is considering passing a bill that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to bring their weapons to school (any public college or university in the state of Texas). On the anniversary of the Virginia Tech 2007 shootings, alumni John Woods helped organize a walkout on April 16th at the University of Texas where he is now a graduate student. Students across campus walked out of class and marched to the capitol to protest. Those who opposed the bill listened and cheered to speeches made by John Woods and Texas Representatives while counter-protesters voiced their opinions on the side, standing up for their second amendment rights.
  1. groups:
    Entertainment,   Politics,   Random,   VC2 Top Contenders US,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Entertainment,  Random,  Current TV,  5 more
  3. credits:
    ironknee16 Camera, ChelseaRenee Producer and Camera, emilyvisher Producer, more
  4.     
    |
    Embed video:
    |

18 comments // Guns on Campus - UT Walkout // Video

  • 23485768934756
    • 0
      23485768934756  

    • The supposition here is that if the law prevents a person from carrying guns on campus then no one will ever carry a gun to school. This would include the mentally unstable, someone who is emotionally upset over a grade or social event, and the evil.

      We are to assume that if someone has the convection to kill that they will somehow be discouraged by the law. Somehow this almightily law will prevent them from illegally bringing a hidden firearm onto campus and accomplishing their emotional objective.

      We know it is illegal to use a firearm against someone unless it is in self defense. Thus, using the same logic, would not the law prevent someone from using a firearm regardless of a carry or no carry law.

      The almighty law prevents someone from exercising a firearm against someone else providing only one exception, self defense. We must conclude the almighty law will protect us regardless of who is carrying a firearm or what type of firearm.

      The law that prevents someone from caring a firearm onto campus is of the same or of lesser weight than the law which prevents someone from exercising a firearm against someone else, barring the exception.

      To expound, the no carry law makes the assumption that we must not allow guns on campus, because no one will follow the law which is to prevent someone from exercising a firearm against someone else, barring the exception.

      Vice versa, no one is going to follow the law that makes it illegal to exercise a firearm on campus if everyone is allowed to carry a firearm. Therefore, we must have another law which prevents firearms on campus.

      Why would the no carry law be followed and the no discharge law (barring the exception) not be followed.

      The conclusion, the passage of the no carry law is to make the law in general of no effect.

      **The no carry law makes the statement that no one will follow the law.**

    • 2 years ago
  • nickmoyer
    • 0
      nickmoyer  

    • this video is absolutely wrong in what it stands for and what these people are saying. for instance, the TA, unstable people will not be able to have the license to carry the gun, so you don't have anything to worry about. these people with the licenses are stable individuals that have to pass tests in order to receive the license to carry their firearm.

      these people that are against this legislation would probably prefer police without guns too just in case they have an "off day" as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • elkabong
  • FloridaBreeze
    • 0
      FloridaBreeze  

    • Are these ppl nutz? Guns dont belong in the class, no more than they belong in Church! i cant imagine my daughter sitting in class next to someone with a 22 and a bad day.

    • 2 years ago
  • officervisher
  • hedonic
  • jolyto
    • 0
      jolyto  

    • i thought the best part of working on this was talking to the counter-protesters. they were articulate and their answers were thoughtful and thought-provoking. although i don't agree with having concealed weapons on campus, they were able to open my mind to the other sides of the issue.

      that's invaluable since it makes a person re-evaluate why they believe what they believe and how to strengthen that position.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
  • AOstler
  • pinkerbelle
  • FrankyZemo
  • emauck
  • Gargaryun
    • 0
      Gargaryun  

    • I started to be enraged by the previous post,(thinking "racist asshole") until I finished reading it on thru, & realized the context...Thank You, Ricky84, for putting this side of the issue so succinctly!
      For those of You who DON'T get it, Let Me explain...All it takes for evil to triumph is for Good People to do nothing...In other words, what's BEEN happening is the truism "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
      being demonstrated every time some psycho goes out to kill a bunch of people where they KNOW there won't be anyone capable of stopping them (Campuses) because the Law-Abing Students WON'T have guns!

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  

    • I love some people can take the restriction of an inalienable right, based on the weak generalization of a group of individuals, and spin it into a plus. So now that public opinion has shifted and demonized the gun touting nigger should I expand this argument and include the blasphemous atheist and the murdering, pro-choice woman?

      You can't have your cake and eat it too. So what is it? How many of those protesters really want to reignite the ridiculous assertion that individuals can be defined by weak generalizations?

    • 2 years ago
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • Ricky84:

      at this point, any situations that we predict, whether it's being more protected by having guns on campus or less protected by having guns on campus, are all generalizations. we can't say either way, we can only guess. those who express the popular opinion win. it's not about being swept under some mat of ignorance or "going with the crowd" as you make it seem. you nor i know what will happen with a change in this legislation so we should be careful to say which way is 'right'.

      for a disclosure on my opinion. a school is simply a building where it is convenient for people to gather for the purpose of intellectual enlightenment. there is no room for anything else that could block the day to day necessity of the school, like the mass gathering of guns on campus. i don't need a school to teach me, it is just convenient and society likes to demand it. i would gladly leave a school and ask for a tuition refund if i felt i was not going to get what i was promised - a safe, convenient place to be educated.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Ricky84:

      "at this point, any situations that we predict, whether it's being more protected by having guns on campus or less protected by having guns on campus, are all generalizations."

      It looks like you just watered down bullshit but then again i didn't properly define the generalizations advanced by the video. So let me try again. The argument that criminals commit crimes with guns (which are bad) and therefore law-abiding citizens with guns are also bad is called a faulty generalization or an association fallacy. This is junk logic because the standard is completely incapable of grading virtue or correctness. Case in point, if the gun or no gun standard was truly capable of determining danger or "correctness," across the board, then how can you justify the use of armed police officers on colleges without adding another variable to the equation? You can't, therefore arguing from this angle is stupid.

      So like I said before, the gun control debate is simply racism by another standard.

      "we can't say either way, we can only guess. "

      No you're just framing the issue in an irrelevant way. The whole point of a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the people and individuals rights are simply the naturally endowed rights of free men and women. In other words our rights are not simply guaranteed because the government wrote them down on a piece of paper. We have our rights because we were born with them and our government was created to ensure those rights. So we can determine what is going to happen either way. By safeguarding our rights from prejudice assertions we maintain our rights.

      We're also able, to a degree, determine the consequences of maintaining rights since we do not limit our intellect to base, emotional arguments (like guns bad, no guns good). The men and women fighting for desegregation and integration knew they were trying to create a diverse culture instead of just swapping the currently accepted white culture for another.

      “It’s not about being swept under some mat of ignorance or "going with the crowd" as you make it seem.”

      Yes and all this is coming from an individual that advocates a belief system that can’t tell the difference between a criminal and a police officer. No wonder you’re at a lost to describe the consequences of this legislation and no wonder all those segregation and Jim Crow law supporters were freaked out at the prospect of having think beyond their prejudice, fear mongering ways.
      “Or a disclosure on my opinion. a school is simply a building where it is convenient for people to gather for the purpose of intellectual enlightenment. there is no room for anything else that could block the day to day necessity of the school, like the mass gathering of guns on campus.”
      That’s great but no one is trying to take away your right to go to the school of your choosing. The aim of this bill is to allow concealed weapons holders to bring their weapons onto a public or private school. If that scares you just do what the racists did in the sixties, enroll in different school.

    • 2 years ago
  • ChelseaRenee
    • 0
      ChelseaRenee  

    • It's great to see John Woods speak out and get other students to speak out, too! It was nice to see a peaceful demonstration with great words from Texas politicians against the bill. I love Garnet Coleman's quote: "We certainly don't want college students being confused with deer."
      I'm also glad UT governance has voted against the bill. Hopefully, their leadership in the ban will show other politicians that this bill is just ridiculous!

    • 2 years ago
  • jamilfelipe
more from Entertainment:
from the community

top videos