Longenecker asserts that officials should not be proud of standing up to liberty constituents, but should remember that constituents stand up to stubborn officials, in fact instruct them, and this is the core of Longenecker’s commentary and answer.
The Virginia Tech shooting is not entirely due to a mad gunman, but the gunman’s awareness of a target-rich environment made so by the dangerous policies of the Universities in America.
Longenecker cites as the latest example of such stubbornness campuses where self-defense itself is banned. Not only weapons, but self-defense when a zero tolerance is enforced. In many schools with such a policy, campus officials will not discern aggressor from victim very well; students cannot resist aggression without being charged with fighting and can be disciplined for violating zero-tolerance rules. It's too unpredictable, it's dangerous and not in the interests of students to discourage their individual authority to act.
"This is not in accord with public policy and interest in a university charged with such a public trust," says Longenecker. "The student body as adults is defamed as being troublemakers who must be disarmed against their authority as citizens."
Longenecker’s answer is available in his regular edition at www.goodforthecountry.com There, he re-frames the issue properly – not a gun issue, but an authority issue, where wholesale frustration of student authority is common, and he points to how unpatriotic it is for servants to take away personal weapons from the citizens they serve.
How do you check your civil right at the door, or upon arriving on campus? And why must you?
This edition furnishes an upbraiding history lesson for schools nationwide and a useful insight for non-gun owners interested in household and family safety planning.
See this edition at www.goodforthecountry.com
