Letters: We don’t need another 2nd Amendment

In the upcoming election, Louisiana residents have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that could expand gun rights in the state. Amendment 2 leaves Louisiana one court decision away from allowing firearms on college campuses.

As a student at LSU, I feel that campus is a safe place, dedicated to the pursuit of higher learning. Allowing firearms on campus decreases the sense of safety and could prove detrimental to a healthy learning environment.

During my military service, I was highly trained in weapons and tactical shooting, but even I doubt my own abilities to neutralize a threat in a classroom of hundreds of students; therefore, I highly doubt the ability of novice shooters to do the same. No amount of hunting, and practice at the range will prepare a student to make the life or death decisions necessary in a tactical shooting scenario. We cannot expect them to neutralize a misguided student shooter as hundreds of panicked students flee, nor can we expect a student to process who is the real threat when more than one student in the same room has a gun in an active shooter situation.

Every bullet fired in a room endangers students, no matter the intentions of the shooters. The students that are intent on protecting others may very well harm or kill those they intend to protect. How can we expect the novice gun owner to process whether the situation involves one active shooter, as at Virginia Tech, or multiple shooters, as at Columbine? The wrong determination could result in unnecessary deaths.

We have a campus police force that trains for active shooter scenarios, but these scenarios become far more complicated when several students are brandishing weapons. When campus security arrives at the scene, it will be very difficult to determine the intent of every student with a gun and could result in the deaths of students that were just trying to protect themselves and others.

This amendment would also allow for non-students to carry firearms on campus while tailgating. When guns, alcohol, and rivalries are combined, a situation just as dangerous as an active shooter can arise.

Do Tiger fans really want to put the safety of their children at the hands of a person with a loaded firearm, and who has just polished off a 12-pack?

If that thought makes you nervous, then please refrain from voting in favor of this amendment. I am a gun enthusiast and owner, and I believe this is a constitutionally protected right, and that is why I will be voting against this amendment. If it fails, our 2nd Amendment rights will remain intact; if it passes, it may infringe upon our right to life.

Conor Whetsel

student at LSU

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (41)


1) Comment by Conor - 19/01/2013

I have just recently checked the comments to the letter I wrote to the editor, and I thank you all for reading it, whether or not you agree with my opinion. However, I take Spade's first comment as an insult. You have obviously taken the time to research my name, and come to your own conclusions. Yes, I was a postal clerk aboard an amphib, but that does not indicate my training. In order to better inform you, I was trained as a member on my ships Visit Boards Search and Seizure team. We received tactical training from former SEALs in order to carry out maritime intervention operations. The training I received was just below that of the SEALs and Swift boat operators. I received tactical training for anti-piracy and anti-drug running operations. For your information, I was trained to use M-4s, as well as M-16s, M-9s, M-14s, and among others, 50-cal crew served weapons. I do not belittle the service of any person that served, even if they lacked the ASVAB score to serve in the Navy.

2) Comment by Spade - 01/11/2012

"During my military service, I was highly trained in weapons and tactical shooting, " Really, PO3 Whetsel? Exactly how much weapons training did you get while you were a Postal Clerk aboard an amphib. Was it more than just qualifying at Great Mistakes? Did maybe some the Marines aboard let you look at one of their M16s?

3) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 31/10/2012

2 Tea_Slayer no that was sarcasm..honk honk

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 31/10/2012

"Then Mr. Whetsel sit compliantly at you desk while you are being shot. " yeah, very "humorous"

5) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 31/10/2012

Tea_Slayer both comments where humorous on the subject. I guess the goose`comment got under your skin. Honk

6) Comment by CountryAttorney - 30/10/2012

@DMJ: I can't say that I disagree about the problem with activist judges, whether republican or democrat. I mostly do criminal defense and personal injury, so I don't necessarily like republican judges. I vote republican (most of the time...I didn't vote for Jindal either time), but that's not because it is good for my area of practice...its not. I vote republican because I feel they have a better plan for the country as a whole. The well being of the country is far more important than the well being of my wallet. I've got to hand it to you, DMJ, even though we have very different views in these posts, I have come to enjoy our debates more and more through a (as I perceive it) mutual respect.

7) Comment by ScotB - 30/10/2012

This amendment will pass. Support for the right of people to arm themselves is very high in Louisiana. I do not feel that support for this amendment will lead to guns on campus, whatsoever. So the letter is well written, but based on a false premise to begin with.

8) Comment by nimby? - 30/10/2012

please explain how the NRA created this problem . perhaps the Brave team , in their upcoming meeting , should ask the "offenders" where and how they are getting their weapons and why they are killing each other , should be a logical , understandable answer . then ask them to simply turn them over . group hug .

9) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/10/2012

What good are gun rights if the property you own ain't worth owning anymore? I support the Right to Bear Arms, but I also support the Right to Own Property. Seems the Right to Own Property no longer is respected by Local Government. We need a Property Right Amendment too.

10) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/10/2012

We could sure use another 4th Amendment. Seems like the 4th Amendment we currently have does not matter anymore.

11) Comment by DMJ - 30/10/2012

You'd think gun violence would prompt gun control. Instead, it prompts the opposite. Very strange. I gotta hand it to the NRA; they're the most effective lobbying organization in the country. They create a problem, then they sell you the solution, which makes the original problem worse, making you buy their solutions even more...and so on...and so on... Meanwhile, people are dying and business has never been better. Crazy. I have one word for this ensuing debacle: ugh.

12) Comment by Bwaites985 - 30/10/2012

Tea_Slayer your comments are obviously made from ignorance. You have your views and I believe they are wrong, but either way this amendment will pass and you can complain all you want but it will do no good. The people of this state want to protect their gun rights even further and they will.

13) Comment by DMJ - 30/10/2012

CountryAttorney, I see your point, but I definitely don't feel any better about it, especially considering the political leanings and activist nature of Republican judges these days. Republicans, correctly, have figured out that the best way to make laws is to get friendly judges on the courts and then bring a case before them. Granted, Democrats do this too, but not too effectively. Not in Louisiana...not anymore...

14) Comment by Grumpy - 30/10/2012

Concealed carry on campus is not a foregone conclusion with this amendment. Far from it. Meanwhile, if it were, so what? It would mean that my life continues to have the same value off campus as it does on campus. It would mean that no one would any longer be trying to convince people that I might suddenly become a menace to society simply by stepping onto campus. Conor seem to worry a lot about what might happen in an active shooter situation. No sweat.... lots of people wonder about such things. If we look at actual history as opposed to imagined fears we find virtually no reason to harbor the fears Conor promotes. Anyone interested in learning more can do a search for "Students for Concealed Carry" and find a website that addresses these issues and many more.

15) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/10/2012

CBCS, then explain your comment "Then Mr. Whetsel sit compliantly at you desk while you are being shot." which clearly implies that students should have guns in teh classroom. You can't even keep your idiotic comments from contradicting themselfs, you stupid goose.

16) Comment by gofigger - 30/10/2012

Just one more law for our government to circumvent.

17) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 30/10/2012

Tea_Slayer if an armed mad mad burst into a classroom the students should jump up a yell look out Mr gunman the professor has a weapon And while the gunman is shooting the teacher, the kids could run out the back door . Of course you silly goose I am against students bringing firearms to class even though the have a license to carry.

18) Comment by IH8Mud - 29/10/2012

Tea_Slayer, yeah, I read that document, also. This paragraph is taken from the PAR document that you want to refer to: "The current wording in the Louisiana Constitution that allows the Legislature to pass laws to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons could result in a wholesale ban on concealed weapons anywhere in the state—including inside one’s own home. Deleting that language would help ensure that in the future the Legislature could not enact such a ban. However, the deletion of that language does not mean the Legislature would lose its right to pass concealed carry laws. For example, many other states do not have explicit constitutional provisions about concealed gun laws and their legislators are able to regulate concealed carry weapons. The proposed amendment does not take away the authority of the Legislature to pass gun laws but subjects those laws to greater scrutiny by the courts to ensure the protection of fundamental rights." This is the same document that you were using as a reference which completely contradicts what you are stating. How is this not clear enough for you to understand that this does not restrict the proposition and passing of concealed carry laws?

19) Comment by CountryAttorney - 29/10/2012

I'm not saying its a huge leap, but I am saying that in order to fully appreciate the effect of the amendment, you need to inform yourself of the legal test to be applied. Not every looney toon will have unfettered access to arms. Reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms will pass constitutional muster. The reason the constitutional amendment was proposed was to eliminate the legislature's ability to outright ban the concealing of weapons on the person. It may have other consequences, but that was the intent.

20) Comment by DMJ - 29/10/2012

It's not exactly a logical leap to assume that if this passes, guns will be allowed on college campuses. Otherwise, why have the amendment at all? If gun advocates weren't trying to change the laws, then they wouldn't be trying to change the laws, now would they? Especially considering the slow, steady and effective purge of Democrats and moderate Republicans from all levels of the judiciary. Just the other day, I saw a campaign ad for someone running for Supreme Court who was bragging about being "a solid conservative." This ad specifically mentions that the candidate is a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment and even shows him duck hunting. Clearly, loosening gun restrictions is on the agenda of some running for the judiciary. Like I said, it's not exactly a logical leap.

21) Comment by CountryAttorney - 29/10/2012

Just FYI...the Strict Scrutiny test is as follows: The law prohibiting the right is presumed to be unconstitutional. The burden of proof is on the state to prove its constitutionality. The state must prove a compelling governmental interest, and that the law restricting the right is narrowly tailored/the list restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. With that, I believe (I do not know) that the state could prove that it has a compelling interest in keeping students and visitors on a school campus safe, and that some restriction (not an all out ban) on gun possession on campus is narrowly tailored enough to accomplish that interest. So the writer of the letter should be at ease. LSU should remain relatively gun free. And I certainly believe that elementary and high schools would be allowed to have an all out ban on firearms on campus.

22) Comment by nimby? - 29/10/2012

there are many more guns in rural parts of the state , yet the the majority of violent crimes committed with them are in urban areas , with small arms . in the past the weapon of choice , the saturday nite special , a snub nose 38 . most of the weapons used now are foreign made , chinese knock offs . they pass from owner to owner , then dissappear . they are cheap , unreliable . not exactly the kind of weapon owned by gun enthusiast . while this is pretty much feel good legislation it seems to have the gun restrictionists upset . will be interesting to see how the precincts in 70805 vote on this ...

23) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/10/2012

"If the law passes the scrutiny, which the law of not being able to have guns on a campus likely would, the law would go into/stay in effect." So you "know" that gun restrictions on campus "likely would" pass strict scrutiny? You "know" this how?

24) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/10/2012

IH8Mud, it is you who likes "to comment on an amendment what they "think" that they know about" According to the non-partisan organization PAR "Passage of the proposed amendment could lead to an increase in challenges to the state’s existing gun laws and the possibility that some laws used to help prosecute criminals could be overturned. Any of the statutes in the Criminal Code regarding the possession and carrying of guns could be affected...Although it is unknown if any of these challenges ultimately would suc- ceed, the proposed constitutional amendment opens the door wider to the possibility. Adding to the concern is the fact that the amendment deletes the language giving the Legislature the specific authority in the Constitution to restrict concealed weapons." -- http://www.parlouisiana.org/s3web/1002087/docs/2012_guide_to_constitutional_amendme nts.pdf

25) Comment by Whatchange - 29/10/2012

This is one of those letters where the letter writer believes nothing more than where "The Advocate" stands on an amendment and what their opinion is. I "don't" believe guns belong on a College Campus, No Where in the amendment does it give anyone the right to carry one. I am truly on the fence as to if I'm voting for or against this amendment. I do know this, I'm not going to let people like the letter writer or people who scream " their trying to take our guns" sway my vote. I don't believe guns belong on College Campus, church, bars, or schools, I "don't" believe people need to carry or own assault weapons, I "do" believe we need tighter guns laws and common sense gun laws, most importantly, I "do" believe in my 2nd amendment rights, and I do believe there are people out there who would love nothing more than to take them away, just don't believe it will happen any time soon, but any law that makes it harder to accomplish that, is one I will take heed to.

26) Comment by IH8Mud - 29/10/2012

While the author of this letter has the first paragraph technically correct, I think that he is using a overly "alarming" tactic to try to make an argument. I also think that many here need to re-read what the amendment actually does. It is not designed to repeal any and all old laws that have been passed. It does not even limit any new laws from being passed. It simply provisions for the courts to provide strict scrutiny for any laws which are passed which are aimed to limit perceived 2nd amendment rights. If the law passes the scrutiny, which the law of not being able to have guns on a campus likely would, the law would go into/stay in effect. This is also good in that it doesn't allow the wording of a law to be vague and open to interpretation. It must be clearly stated what the limitation to the 2nd amendment right is. Why is that not a good thing? It doesn't even mean that you wouldn't still need a permit to be allowed to "concealed carry". It is amazing how many people like to comment on an amendment what they "think" that they know about.

27) Comment by DMJ - 29/10/2012

Heat, my logic is as follows: Looser gun laws = more guns = easier access to guns (for everyone) = more gun violence. I think the shear volume of guns allows for criminals to more easily get their hands on them. Call me crazy. Gun shows, guns pawn shops, "private dealer" sales, internet sales....if we were smart, we'd do away with all of these as well. But...we're not. You can relax, Heat. I'm sure this will pass overwhelmingly. I've never been on the winning side of this issue in my lifetime. Hopefully, if the issue of guns on campus does go to the courts, the judges will uphold a school's right to restrict the carrying of firearms. I guess we'll find out...

28) Comment by Heat - 29/10/2012

DMJ, you said the following: "To all voters, just remember...Louisiana is already 5th in gun ownership and #1 in gun violence. You really think this will help anything?" DMJ, would you care to explain exactly how strengthing the rights of concealed permit holders would result in more gun violence? Clearly, based on your comments, you must believe that CHP holders make up a large portion of the criminal element in Louisiana, already. Please do at least some research on this subject before making such comments. Not for my benefit- for your own. It never hurts to think for one's own self- especially when seeking the truth.

29) Comment by Heat - 29/10/2012

Since Conor has been good enough to acknowledge the possibility of the unthinkable does indeed exist, I would like to ask a question. Conor, what- based on your own expertise- do you suggest a student should do if a deranged student like you described enters a classroom with only one exit, blocks the one exit, and begins an act so evil I really don't want to describe it any further here? Becuse that's exactly what took place at Virginia Tech- sadly, with a tragically predictable outcome. I thank you for your service, I really do. But sir, if you honestly believe and are trying to convince anyone with half a brain that someone with a concealed weapons permit would be "better off" in the situation described above WITHOUT a gun....Well, I will simply stop right there. Please stop presenting doomsday "wild west" scenarios that have never happened as fact. I am sure your suggestions are well-intended; I hope that is the case. But I would much rather have AT LEAST THE OPTION of saving my own life than to be shot execution-style by someone with much worse intentions than yourself. Based on this, I must disagree.

30) Comment by dday198 - 29/10/2012

as a gun owner i agree with the letter

31) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/10/2012

Bwaites985, it is you who needs to read further. As i have already stated, this new amendment would allow for challenges to existing laws, including gun-free zones, the requirement for concealed carry permits, etc. It has everything to do with having guns on campus.

32) Comment by Bwaites985 - 29/10/2012

Conor, I really don't believe you understand what the amendment does. Please read a little more carefully and you will understand it protects the rights of the people from further gun control. It says nothing about having guns on campus. That is another issue. I have already voted in favor of the amendment since I decided to vote early and I hope everyone else does the same.

33) Comment by DMJ - 29/10/2012

Great letter, Conor. It's nice to hear such an informed and coherent opinion about a topic that makes people very emotional. "If it fails, our 2nd Amendment rights will remain intact; if it passes, it may infringe upon our right to life." Here, here. Well said, sir. To all voters, just remember...Louisiana is already 5th in gun ownership and #1 in gun violence. You really think this will help anything?

34) Comment by 8.3 - 29/10/2012

In church, I let the ushers get a peek at my concealed gun, and they weren't nearly so pushy with those collection plates. Thank God for the right to carry guns in churches.

35) Comment by shad-o - 29/10/2012

Well said. I agree on all points.

36) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/10/2012

BigHug: Anyone intent on bringing a gun into a schoolroom and shoot people will not be deterred by the thought that others may be carrying as well. This new constitutional amendment only opens up every gun control law to legal challenge, including the requirement to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If that is reversed due to this new amendment, then any loony could "legally" carry a gun anywhere.

37) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/10/2012

CBCS: shot by whom? the perpetrator or idiot with the Concealed Carry permit?

38) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 29/10/2012

Then Mr. Whetsel sit compliantly at you desk while you are being shot.

39) Comment by Bighug - 29/10/2012

Anyone intent on bringing a gun into a schoolroom and shoot people will not be deterred by a law. It seems the writer believes fewer people died in the cases cited than would have if a someone with a legally possessed gun had shot the killers. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

40) Comment by Wallop - 29/10/2012

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of mentally incompetent people to own a gun.

41) Comment by Maelstrom - 29/10/2012

Succinct and well-argued. I am just picturing the professor in class worried about all of his students carrying guns, most just out of high school angry at him because of a grade. If I was a professor, i'd have to bring my gun to the classroom as a result.