It’s Jan. 24, 2012, and I cannot believe I am spending my time addressing an issue I’ve covered twice previously@@guess they just don’t want to listen to you@@. Don’t get me wrong, if I could rename my column “The Gun Show” and every week ramble on about guns, gun shopping or even my last trip to the range, I would. But there are other seemingly more pressing and interesting issues that warrant discussion, especially in a year where tensions are flaring up with Iran, the GOP continues to search for someone who can not mess up long enough to make it to the White House and controversial legislation ranging from enemy detention to the Internet are all abuzz.

I say “seemingly” because despite the fact that we are still without a permanent University president, have an ever deteriorating student union building and can’t even get enough tickets from the athletic department for students, the ASUO made it a point to declare to whoever will listen that they support a ban on concealed carry on campus. Baffling — both in its uselessness and its disregard for reality.

However, there is a silver lining to this exercise in frustration, an epiphany that cannot be understated, one that has forever changed my approach going forward. Prior to this “resolution,” I’ve always taken a defensive approach to discussing the Second Amendment and all it entails.@@?@@ So much so that, had it not been for a previous engagement, I would’ve spoken at the ASUO Senate meeting in an attempt to further “defend” students’, and more importantly, people’s inalienable right to defend themselves@@from what?@@. I had all my talking points lined out: facts, statistics, and what rational arguments I was going to make.

But after reading what was presented at said meeting, I couldn’t have ever prepared for the logic and reasoning that seemed more appropriate for a high school civics class than a student Senate meeting.

Disappointed doesn’t even come close to describing how I felt and still feel@@er, what happened?@@. Regardless of the quality of arguments, what has now changed is I don’t have to address these silly and rhetorical arguments.

I do not need to demonstrate the irony in citing McDonald v. City of Chicago as evidence that concealed carry should be banned because schools are “sensitive areas” when the entire point of the case was to overturn a handgun ban in Chicago.@@er…over turning a ban with conditions: schools@@ A ban that was ruled unconstitutional because the Second Amendment covers and applies to self-defense at the local, state and federal level.@@banks, county, federal buildings ban guns@@ Self-defense by way of concealed carry is just that: an application of the Second Amendment. I also don’t need to argue that most mass shootings (and certainly) the bloodiest have taken place in areas where the citizenry is disarmed or at least expected to be.@@and how often have they not happened? also, how many people are killed annually by handguns that aren’t mass shootings?@@

I don’t need to expose Sens. Rudin, Hedlund & Co.’s inability to recognize that laws, rules or regulations are not going to stop a determined individual or one that simply ignores those very same laws and rules@@hence, enforcement of said laws and rules would be necessary@@. I do not need to display how rare it is for an individual that has a concealed carry permit to break the law.

I don’t need to illustrate how flawed it is to cite the Violence Policy Center’s numbers on “CCW Killers” when they include cases that have yet to be resolved (so much for innocent until proven guilty) and even cases where the defendant was either acquitted, had charges dropped or charges were not filed. Furthermore, they include suicides because apparently having a CCW permit matters when you decide to “check out” early.

I do not need to tell you how Rudin seems to know who among the students has had training with a firearm or lack thereof@@?@@. And because some may or may not lack training, everybody should be prevented from being able to defend themselves.@@why do you want to carry a gun at all?@@ Nor do I need to reveal that in all reality Rudin is at the least afraid of the idea of any regular citizen carrying a gun, much less one of his peers, and at the most is advocating to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Why don’t I need to do all these things? Well, for one, I already have in the comments section here.@@and in this column@@ Second, and more importantly, because I am not trying to alienate the inalienable, I am not wishing to restrict the natural born rights of any person. In order to strip away rights, one must make compelling and meaningful arguments backed up with facts, logic and sound reasoning. They have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that without action, the resulting consequences would be apocalyptic. Clearly they have failed in doing just that.

Yet, none of the above reasons are why this resolution is laughable. It is laughable because they actually think they have a chance at winning. They truly believe deep down in their hearts that they’ll overcome the pesky Amendment and all the “chaos” it brings, this despite the fact that gun sales have never been higher and the fastest growing segment of new gun owners are women.@@paranoia? marketing?@@

In fact, proposed legislation making it legal to carry on campus has never been more prominent as it is now.@@curious at mass shootings how ofter, if at all, shooter has been stopped by a person carrying a concealed gun@@

I no longer have to argue, debate or defend a fundamental human right@@i love this part@@ because no matter what resolutions people pass or what legislation is proposed in favor of restricting one of these fundamental rights, they’ll never get enough support because people aren’t willing to vote away their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.