While many professors and students worry that guns in classrooms will frighten people and discourage free expression, supporters of a new state law counter that the right to bear arms must not be restricted.
The problem with the gun-rights debate is the fear in conservatives that adding rules is akin to taking away rights.
The founding fathers embedded the second amendment into the Constitution to promote safety against external threats, but they did not imagine their instruments of safety as weapons of destruction. The moment that gun use crossed the line separating defense from murder, is the moment when its nature and reason for personal use in the U.S. also changed. This means that the meaning the founding fathers attributed to guns no longer exists, and as the meaning changes over time, so must the law.
That is not to say that guns should not be allowed for personal safety. They should be allowed, but the law must take into account the changing nature of the use of guns and update( in truth, restrict) the accessibility of guns. Without prejudice, each person who wants a gun should be screened, and if they pass, they are welcome to get it.
The conservative argument is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Under that argument, in order to limit people’s ability to kill others then access to the instruments that allow those acts must be given only after deep screenings. People kill so people must be restricted from using guns.
On a college campus, though, the argument is not just the 2nd amendment right, it extends to the 1st amendment, too.
Guns have no place in colleges, universities, or any other institution of learning, because these places promote education, debate, and open-mindedness, not fear, restriction, and chaos.
The idea that people will not notice is naive, because in order for this conversation to have started, some had to have noticed. Plus, the potential of people noticing in the future threatens the creativity and conversations of universities.