Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 21, 1997)
ige Dl ■ The Battalion Page 7 Monday • April 21, 1997 uns ’ll us THE GOVERNMENT TREE (with apologies to Shel Silverstein) Columnist nti-gun Proponents overlook freedom [( A mericans have the right and advantage of L\ being armed — unlike the citizens of other x \.countries whose governments are afraid to st the people with arms.” — James Madison, The deralist Papers - No. 46. Sadly, in 1994, Congress ignored the founding fa- :ers and trampled on the Constitution. The infa- ous “crime bill” (H.R. 3355), banned certain semi- utomatic firearms and large capacity ammunition [lips holding more than 10 rounds. Americans were o outraged over this attack on liberty, they helped lake the 103rd Congress the last Congress con- oiled by Democrats. Fortunately, whenever freedom is assaulted, real mericans fight back. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has introduced “The Second Amendment Restora tion Act of 1997,” (H.R. 1147.) Paul’s bill would repeal bans on over 180 types of semi-au tomatic firearms and large ca pacity magazines. Disappointingly, Texas A&M’s voice in Congress, Kevin Brady, will not support it. Brady’s assaults on gun rights have drawn the ire of constitu tional scholars and activists alike (in the Texas House, he lobbied against concealed car- tiittijy). Brady may not like it, but when he took his oath of office he pledged to defend the Constitution. It’s about lime he kept his promise and co-sponsored H.R. 1147. I Liberal politicians opposed to the repeal claim to | have compelling reasons. Usually, they cite the h' ridiculous arguments spouted by gun haters such as Handgun Control,Inc. Luckily, the gun control lob- h) 1 in Washington easily is debunked when fact is in troduced into the debate. For example, anti-gun lib erals attempt to justify the gun ban by saying things such as: •The founding fathers never imagined there would be semi-automatic weapons. To the contrary. There were, in fact, “semi-automat- ’ weapons in colonial times. Flintlock rifles usually were fired in single-shot fashion. Some colonials, how- J ever, would pour several musketballs into their rifle. These “semi-automatics” fired multiple rounds at |Up: shew 1. (( | Donny Ferguson Sophomore political science major inr-.; Once there was a tree... and she respected a little hoy. And every day the boy would go to work and he would earn a good paycheck and he would spend it on food, clothing and a home. And he could own a gun and pray in school and then retire. And he could enjoy freedom and liberty. And if his rights were threatened, the tree protected him. And the boy trusted the tree... very much. And he was free. But time went by. And the tree grew bigger. And the boy was getting suspicious. Then one day the tree came to the boy and said "Boy, you work hard and earn a good paycheck and you spend your money to make your life easier. Aren’t you ashamed of your exploitation ofthe underclass you white male oppressor?” "What do you mean?, ’’said the boy. / work hard and just want to be left alone. Cant I enjoy the fruits of my own labor?” "I'm sorry, ’’said the tree, “you must be an uncaring Republican. I am morally superior and more compassionate. 1 will take your money, Boy, and spend it on arts funding and midnight basketball. Then I will engineer society and everyone will be happy. ” And so the tree created the IRS and taxed the boy at a confiscatory rate and took his money away. And the boy wasn’t happy. But the tree wasn’t satisfied and wanted more and the boy was frightened And then one day the tree came back and the boy shook with worry and he said, “Hello, Tree, did my money go to help the poor and make them happy?” “Actually, everyone is poor now, but I had good intentions, ” said the tree. “At least I can own my gun, ” the boy said. "The Second Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ’ Aren’t you happy Tm free?” “Your gun holds too many rounds, ” said the tree. “And it looks militaristic, and you could use it to keep me in check so I will take your gun. Then you can’t oppose me. ” And so the tree ignored the Constitution and took the boy’s gun away so she would look good on TV. And the boy was beaten and robbed. But the tree stayed away for a long time. And when she came back the boy was so frustrated he could hardly speak. “Hello, Boy, “ she said. “What have you done to serve the government today?” “I went to school and prayed, ” said the boy. "The First Amendment says of religion you shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ Aren’t you happy Tm free?” “You Christian extremist you just want to impose your narrow-minded views on people!, ” said the tree. “Schoolprayer is now illegal... I’ll hand out condoms instead. ” And so the Supreme Tree Court banned school prayer and made the boy listen to Joycelyn Elders. And the boy was sad... very sad And after a long time the boy retiredfrom his job. “I am sorry. Tree, ” said the boy, “but I’m done working for you— NOW I can be free.” “You’re not done yet, ’’said the tree. “But I’ve been paying into Medicare, ” said the boy “It's now bankmpt, ” said the tree. “You’ll have to pay even more— ” “But 1 have no more money you took it all away, ” said the boy. “Clinton hiked Social Security taxes, ’’said the tree. “HE DID WHAT!?” “Bureaucracy costs money ”said the tree. “Government doesn’t work, ” sighed the boy. “I have no money or freedoms left to give you I have nothing left. Well at least / smoke this menthol cigarette. ” “Iam sorry... you can’t do that either, ” said the tree. “Being the omniscient, maternal government that lam. I have banned tobacco to protect you. ” “WHAT!?, ’’ said the boy, mustering as much self-reliance as he could, “Government can control that part of my life too!?” “Pipe down. Boy freedom’s gone. Get back to your job of supporting me. ” And so the boy did. And the tree was happy. ^ijc-i mkm semi-automatic and automatic rifles combined (three percent). Statistics like once , outgunning single-shooters. George Washington these prove semi automatic firearms and James Madison knew full well there would be much more powerful guns ahead, and still mandated .gillieright to keep and bear arms shall not be in- ' iJt)i fringed.” The “crime bill” gun ban is an unconstitu- tional violation of Second Amendment liberties. are not the real problem. • Semi-automatic weapons have no practical purpose. In reality, semi-automatic firearms are frequently used for , a ftili • Semi-automatic firearms are “the preferred choice s P or t shooting and some make of criminals. I Actually, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports vio lent criminals cany or use a “military-type” firearm wer than 1 percent of the time. New Jersey police atistics show only .026 of the one percent involve ssault rifles.” The FBI states police officers are three mes more likely to be killed with their own gun than ie shot by any “assault rifle.” Even though 85 percent fthe nearly 200 guns banned are rifles, the FBI re- orts six times as many people are killed with knives |13 percent of homicides), than with single-shot, fine collector’s items. Most importantly semi-auto matic firearms are perfect for self- defense. During the Los Angeles riots, Korean merchants were spared from the destruction because they were armed with semi-automatic rifles. Riot ers backed down when they saw semi automatic rifles, as opposed to the un armed or under-armed merchants. Had the “crime bill” been law in 1992, these V innocent citizens would have been robbed and possibly murdered. Sport shooting, collecting and the eternal threat of riots and insurrections require peaceable citi zens to have the right to own semi-automatic firearms. As James Madison pointed out, Americans are not subjects of a dicta torship with the power to infringe upon their gun rights. America is a bastion of freedom, and it has created the finest nation to grace God’s earth. The semi-automatic firearms ban is a step backward to King George Ill’s monarchical autocracy which chipped away at the American colo nials’ right to bear arms. George Washington, Thomas Jeffer son and James Madison would be deeply ashamed of gun banners and their ha tred of freedom. The semi-automatic weapons ban must be repealed — for freedom’s sake. Constituents should call Kevin Brady at (202) 225-4901 and ask him to reverse his anti-Constitutional stand by supporting “The Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997.” A&M plan ignores students' rights Columnist Stephen Llano Senior history major Ipring is a season of V rebirth and renewal. Jlexas A&M students nish another round of lasses and prepare for fi- als, looking forward to ie end of the semester. But A&M administra- ars are taking this season eriously. They currently re beginning work on a [trategic plan for A&M to peus on where the Uni- [ersity should be heading pthe future. In a recent pamphlet released by the diversity, President Ray Bowen said the tens of the strategic plan is important cause of lack of traditional funding. “Sound strategic planning is essen- al in an environment such as now onfronted by Texas A&M University,” owen said. “It is an environment of di minishing resources from traditional lovernment funding, and where greater iccountability is demanded.” While the necessity of a strategic >lan for A&M is clear, the source of in- >ut for the plan should be an area of oncem for students. Dr. Ronald G. Douglas, executive ace president and provost, is leading his strategic effort. In the same pamphlet, Douglas said, I am confident that, by working togeth- ■i we will produce a document that will tovide a road map to keep us on course toward new levels of achievement and orvice to our constituencies.” The use of the term “constituencies” T Douglas is a red flag. This suggests 'otonly a political motivation, but also «ces all employees, students, alumni, 'hte legislators or any one associated ’ith A&M on the same level. The primary focus of a uni versity’s plan should be the student body. Twelve principal themes for the plan have been iden tified for initial construction. Each of them, in some form or fashion, will directly affect the student body, but there is no specific plan for stu dent involvement. Douglas said the strategic plan should be finished by Oc tober 1997. This timetable suggests that much work will take place over the summer, when many students are not at A&M. Obvi ously, the consideration of student opinion is already on the back burner. Without students, A&M wouldn’t ex ist. Whether this is a research university or not, the presence of a student body is the only reason that Bowen, Douglas or any other University employee, from professor to food services worker, has a job. Obviously, students shouldn’t ex pect the administration to come to them begging for input, but students should take direct and constant action by telling administrators what they would like to see in this plan. Even though first phases of the strategic plan have just started, there are a few planks in the initial proposal the committee should give primary importance to: • “Promote intellectual vitality by in creasing geographic, economic, gender and ethnic diversity.” This is a good starting point. A com mitment to diversity means more than a commitment to multiple skin colors. Diverse religions, economic back grounds and regions of the nation and the world are things that are going to spark a viable intellectual environment. Whereas diversity of race is important, it is not the total of what diversity should be at A&M. • “Aspire to be the best research- university incorporating the land grand mission of the 21st century.” Although these are important considerations, they mostly are used as crutches of justification for mis guided academic policy. Justin Mor rill’s original vision with the land grant congressional act he proposed in 1857 was to provide education for those who desired it at an affordable price. Before more mandatory Student Recreation Center fees or Reed Arena fiascoes occur, the committee should carefully study Morrill’s proposal and include his basic goals. As for research, professors should consistently be re minded they would not be able to re search if it wasn’t for students — the people they are committed to teach. • “Cultivate non-legislative re sources.” Funding through non-traditional means can be attained, but it should be done on an even keel. By allowing self- fimding organizations to cultivate alumni, some money is going to be lost in the shuffle. By combining all fund raising efforts through a larger and more all-inclusive Development Foun dation, perhaps some greater funding for academics and other needs can be fairly and easily distributed. Although the committee will have the best in mind for A&M when they draft these goals, the in put of all students should be con sidered. Students make the Univer sity what it is, and therefore should be consulted when planning for the future of this institution. Spending critics forget student loans C onservatives from Newt Gingrich to the College Republicans speak out against government handouts and demand welfare reform. These outspoken critics also are anxious to stop everyone else’s benefits. But most of these conservatives display a major inconsistency in their belief sys tem. Often the same students who abhor welfare and spit at the mention of social ized health care have no complaints against federally subsidized student loans and federal grants — programs that reek of socialism and government control. It’s hypocritical for any conservative to de nounce one set of freebies while greedily ac cepting another. Most Aggies are familiar with the conservative ar guments against welfare or food stamps. These pro grams steal from the rich to support the poor. The subsidy recipients aren’t encouraged to take care of themselves and the handouts eventually hurt the very people they aim to help by fostering dependency and low self-esteem. Student grants and loans cause these problems and more. Federal money for education is still a government handout. Besides fostering dependency on the pro gram, these subsidies cause other problems as well. The increase in loans and grants has allowed univer sities to raise costs more rapidly. If students still paid for their education from their own pocketbooks, schools would have to be more accountable. As loans and grants become more commonplace, schools with high er costs can still consider themselves “affordable.” Currently Texas A&M finished the largest fund-rais ing drive in the history of higher education. But, A&M is requesting an extra $1 billion from the legislature and is still increasing student fees. Federal and private loans have the added disadvan tage of saddling students with debt. Now as graduates leave the University to pursue families and careers they must worry about the thousands of dollars they owe. Dr. Walter Williams, an economist and professor at George Mason University, maintains that too many stu- Columnist David Johnston junior mathematics major dents are seeking degrees. Williams also ar- ; gues it is immoral for citizens to pay for someone else’s education. The Legislative Relations committee under the Student Government Associa tion regularly lobbies the state legislator for more money. Recently, the commit tee has asked legislators to support a program that would use state lottery money to pay for the college education of students who maintain a ‘B’ average or better. This proposal would take close to 70 million dollars a year from the general budget. This money would have ; to be made up in taxes or budget cuts. Proponents of government subsidies for educa- ; tion point out that people with degrees make more money and contribute more to the economy. Un fortunately, at the time a student enters college, the government cannot be sure whether the stu dent will become a millionaire or one of the 50 per cent of Texas college students who drop out before earning a degree. By giving a grant or subsidizing a loan, the government is taking a gamble with tax money. The investment may cause economic growth or it may be lost forever. These programs are not as beneficial as their proponents claim since half of student loan recipients never pay them back. If the federal government got out of the educa tion business, the world would not end. Young people would still be able to go to college, if they decided a degree was necessary. Enormous amounts of private money every year provides scholarships and even those evil loans. Of course, Aggies also could get money the “old-fash ioned way” — by earning it. It’s possible to put one’s self ' through school by working, and the armed forces still offer college money in exchange for a few years of serv ing the country. Sure, without government intervention it may take longer to graduate, but students likely will have better work experience and not a looming cloud of debt. Be sides, taxpayer money wouldn’t pay for silly elective classes or football tickets.
