Campus guns bill upholds people’s rights

I understand how an editorial such as this (“”Campus gun bill aims for safety, misses target”” April 12 issue) can get drafted, as gun legislation is an emotional and often polarizing issue. As I see it, this editorial is full of emotion and devoid of sound reason. And I disagree with nearly every idea presented within it.

First, and most importantly, where did you get the idea that the second amendment of the Constitution was included to keep an armed populous available for defense against British troops? I hope this is not being taught in schools, because it is completely false! I do not claim to be an expert on our nation’s Constitution, but I am pretty sure that the second amendment exists primarily to ensure the capability of the people to execute an armed revolt of a corrupt government. Our government.

“”Let’s start arming priests and rabbis.”” This bill arms no one. It simply legally restores the right of the individual to carry a concealed firearm on campus. If this bill passes, you can still choose not to carry a firearm. I don’t know you but, based solely on the content of the editorial, I think it best that you choose not to arm yourself.

Next, in response to the paragraph “”How dare legislators pass a law because they believe it best, without listening to the people who are most affected by it?”” I understand that employees of all three universities in this state drafted letters to the legislature that expressed concerns with the concealed carry bill. I suspect that these concerns were given due consideration; however, in this case I think that cooler heads prevailed, and the rights of individuals to defend themselves from violent crime was restored. I would argue the opposite: “”How dare legislators pass a law that rescinds the rights of individuals to bear arms?””

“”When someone walks down the UA Mall with a gun on his hip … “” If the gun is properly concealed, then you will not know who is carrying. And there will be no visible reason to get concerned, upset or afraid that someone you do not know is carrying a firearm.  Besides, it is really not your business anyway.

Lastly, there is one sentence I do agree with — “”That isn’t real life.”” Sadly, if you want to know what real life is, see the map of campus shootings on page 2 of the April 12 Daily Wildcat. I think that this is what the state legislators had in mind when the bill was passed.

— Dana Biddulph, Assistant research scientist

UA artist’s work draws attention to environment

I am writing in response to the article in the Daily Wildcat (“”Campus Creatives: Andrea Jensen”” April 13) about the Master of Fine Arts candidate Andrea Jensen and her outstanding public installation that addresses environmental issues present in today’s society. I think that Jensen’s billboard does a great job of illustrating how our environment is being effected by mass consumerism. The billboard is also a response to the BP oil spill of 2010, which had a very negative impact on our society and its environment. Not only did it affect the wildlife of the Gulf of Mexico, but also the fishermen that make a living from the fish they catch. Jensen’s billboard does a phenomenal job of displaying the oil spill in an artistic way and really puts it in perspective. I was driving on Alvernon Way over the weekend and this stunning billboard really made me stop and think about how our everyday lives make a significant impact on Earth and its environment. Andrea Jensen did a great job of addressing pressing environmental issues in a way that catches your eye and makes you stop and wonder what you can do to change how people impact Earth.

— Arianne Miller, Undeclared freshman